EBP 2 - How Solid Is Mass Support for Democracy: And How Can We Measure It?

The key to Inglehart’s argument is that a particular kind of political culture, combined with a degree of ongoing prosperity is essential for a sustainable democracy. His points boiled down to the process;

Economic development  

=

Increased frequency of self-expression values in the political culture

=

Increased levels of democracy

The importance of a political culture with self-expression values is that it creates an environment in which sustained democracy can successfully thrive. He emphasizes that self-expression values are even more important than the public expression of support for the idea of democracy itself, which has a relatively low correlation with successfully realised democracy in the long term as shown by comparing data from the World Values Survey/European Values Survey with national Freedom House ratings over a given period and specific years.

In essence expressing support for values which are inherent to the democratic process is far more valuable to that process than an individual simply saying the democracy is a good way to run their country. This arises because individuals do not necessarily believe in or support the realisation of democratic fundamentals such as equal rights across all societal groups. For instance Inglehart specifically references views on Homosexuals, showing that while the idea of democracy may be pleasant, the reality is not so favorable when they are forced to confront the rights of individuals who would make up the opposition. 

Economic Development

Inglehart also emphasises the importance of economic development to a successful democracy, however he refutes the presumed causation link. Using examples such as Kuwait to show that while sustainable democracies are found in countries with relative economic development, economic success does not guarantee the presence of a democracy. Economic development allows for the assertion of postmaterialist values and social progression from survival to self-expression. Individual economic security creates an environment in which alternative concerns such as freedom of expression and political activism become important. According to Inglehart this then leads to mass liberalisation demands and direct political participation.

Furthermore Inglehart logically asserts that a system associated with economic prosperity gains more the support, its institutions therefore are more stable and its longevity increases phenomenally. Whereas a political system that is associated with economic mismanagement and disaster is soon replaced by another that appears to have a better solution to the economic issues which become paramount as individual security is compromised.

Specific Values

The first values addressed by Inglehart are interpersonal trust and tolerance. Both of which are essential for a functioning democracy. Without tolerance for the opposition and for the rights of those we dislike a democracy does not last long, one group inevitably choosing to assert its position over the other, as seen in the Rwanda Genocide of 1995. There must also be a degree of trust between not only other societal groups by the public but between competitive potential government parties. If the ruling group does not believe that the opposition will also follow the rules of the democracy, leaving gracefully in the event that they lose the next election then the entire power structure stops functioning.

Empirical Data

Because of the now extensive nature of empirical research programs providing data from more than 70 countries, academics can now analytically compare a broad range of political and socio-economic environments, creating truly global conclusions for the first time.

It is using this data that Inglehart is able to contradict long held assumptions about both Islamic and Asian cultural values. The historic notion was that both of these cultures where inherently incapable of successfully adopting a democracy. However as the Support for Democracy table shows democracy holds a strong appeal in the Islamic world, not only that but when surveyed the populations of Islamic countries where on average 10% less in favor of a strong leader who doesn’t need elections than citizens of the USA (Table 2). On the subject of Asian values Inglehart points to the position of Japan and even south Korea to emphasise the transitional ability of Asian nations, a further explanation can be found at this link - http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/asian-values.html#INTRODUCTION.

 

Criticisms

However Inglehart does not address anomalies such as China, or the lack of this pattern historically in what are now high-ranking democracies. This could arise from a lack of emphasis on the type of economic development that occurs.

For instance Inglehart does not mention the results (or lack of) of economic and social satisfaction as can be seen in Singapore, which although far from a democracy appears to be an extremely well functioning society, with in many cases world leading economic and social practices, and technological development. Without dissatisfaction driving a desire for change there is little incentive to adopt democracy or in fact any new political system. A similar occurrence trends in oil rich middle eastern countries where the ability to fund popularity prevents mass demands for change, even in the face of social conditions considered barbaric by western standards. To some extent it is also possible to say the same for China. Although obviously in both instances there is a lot to be said for authoritarian control mechanisms. From this it is possible to surmise that economic prosperity is helpful in producing a democracy only to the degree that it allows individuals enough resource accumulation to demand more from their social environment. In cases where economic needs are entirely (or at least mostly) met we can see a lack of incentive to change the status quo, and risk generous economic security.

Confining the examples to the UK and America, the origins of their democracies are far from illustrious – in both cases voting was restricted to the upper classes, rampant discrimination and nepotism occurred and yet both have managed to develop (over hundreds of years) into leading world examples of the democratic system. Because of this it seems illogical to assume that the only lasting democracies are ones that start off as good ones, instead the slow adoption of mass power in response to growing public demand seems to be an equally worthwhile endeavour to jumping in fully prepped, even in countries where political culture seems compatible.  

Emily Anselmi

300311494