The mosaic of democratic theory

Joseph Alois Schumpeter published Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in 1942, raising the question of how to define “democracy”:

129 Thomas Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2002):

5-21, DOI: 10.1353/jod.2002.0003.

130 Larry Jay Diamond, “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes,” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 2 (April 1, 2002): 21-35, DOI: 10.1353/jod.2002.0025.

The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.¹³¹

Distinguishing between the differences of different kinds of political regimes in the process of the production of political power throughout history, electoral voting is an important characteristic of democratic political systems, as distinguished from the divine right of kings or political authority based on descent.

Through elections, the ruling power is decided, which, firstly, resolves the issues which come in non-democratic systems from attempting to pick successors.

Secondly, this integrates social classes in the political system, rather than unidirectional responsibilities within a political system. Thirdly, the term limit that a ruling power serves has limits set on it, and it cannot be lifetime rule. In this sense, as “effectiveness” and “legitimacy” are preconditions for an electoral system, these also serve to test whether a political system is genuinely democratic.

Scholars as David Collier and Steven Levitsky have defined the minimum conditions for having achieved democracy.

Fully contested elections (are) with full suffrage and the absence of massive fraud, combined with effective guarantees of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association……(and) that elected governments must have effective power to govern.¹³²

According to this description, there are two means of dividing categorically between authoritarian regimes and democracy, and “free elections” serves as the minimum condition for “democratic order”. But even if free elections are competitive, this does not mean that society has completely achieved democracy either. Namely, democratic elections also need to lead to the “effective power to govern,” and this is also an important criteria that needs to be kept in mind with regards to democratic transitions.

What is the “effective power to govern”? The democratic representation provided for by elections needs to have vertical linkage to the highest levels of political power, so that elections can serve for political transitions of power between democratic representatives. Provided that democratically elected representatives fulfill their duties appropriately, with set term limits for serving in office, and the replacement of unfit representatives, vertical linkages should in this way allow for vertical accountability. The issue that vertical accountability needs to address is usually with regards to both comparatively large and small political responsibilities, in terms of both top-down and bottom-up political relations.

But for the operation of modern political systems, apart from deciding on democratically elected representatives through elections, at the same time, responsibility needs to be taken for administrative authority over the large and complex bureaucratic system, with regards to legal systems and institutions and

131 Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Routledge, 1976). p. 269.

132 David Collier and Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics 49, no. 3 (1997): 430-51. P434.

civil society organizations. These mutually constitute components of the democratic system, which is not entirely decided through democratic elections, as a result of which, vertical accountability cannot be seen as the sole criteria of a democratic political system.

On the other hand, the interaction of these subsystems is not a top-down vertical relation, but exists with a state of horizontal linkages, and the normal operations of the democratic system depends on the operations and functions of these subsystems. Consequently, the subsystems of a democratic system need display horizontal accountability which, as explained in democratic theory, is division of power and the implementation of principles of checks and balances.¹³³

Through research into and the oreticizations made by these scholars, it is increasingly clear what the “effective power to govern” of a democratic system consists of. For an effective democratic system, outside of the indicator of democratic elections, the implementation of civil rights, political freedoms, functional factors of political authority and responsibilities, constitute the key factors of a democratic system of government and the process of democratization.

As mentioned above, Wolfgang Merkel has discussed the functional factors of democratic systems of government, as well as the links between the external and internal environmental interactions of social systems, conceptualizing the notion of embedded democracy. What this theory demonstrates is that functional factors interact with the environment while also raising the issue of how we should evaluate newly formed democracies. Merkel believes that modern democracies should form a complete civil society, and that, from the point of view of government, the government of civil society is inevitably composed of an electoral system, political freedom, citizenship, power and accountability, and effective governance capabilities.

In confronting economic development and economic needs, through functional factors and the interaction of situational pressures, this leads to corresponding reactions, and these form the political structure of an embedded democracy.

Furthermore, according to this view, modern forms of government have the clear characteristic of complicated and specialized systemic structures. In what does these specialized structures develop and change?¹³⁴ Regarding the question of whether a democratic system is effective or can be long-lasting, it is not only important to have criteria to point to as indicators of a democracy but also what the key factors for the consolidation of democracy are.¹³⁵

Figure 2.2. : Merkel’s the concept of embedded democracy

133 Andreas Schedler, Conceptualizing Accountability, in Andreas Schedler, Larry Jay Diamond, and Marc F.

Plattner, The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999). p.23.

134 Wolfgang Merkel, “Embedded and Defective Democracies,” Democratization 11, no. 5 (2004): 33-58.

135 Wolfgang Merkel. (2011). Return of the Dictatorships? In A Future for Democracy. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Source: Merkel, 2002

Merkel believes that in terms of categorizing nations, a liberal democracy includes the following sub factors: 1. a democratic electoral regime, 2. political rights of participation, 3. civil rights, 4. horizontal accountability, and 5. effective power to govern.¹³⁶ The key point in evaluating democratic development is that in the process of political development, elections taking place at regular intervals does not mean a democratic system is successful, as the changes of an electoral system do not necessarily indicate whether the process of institutionalization has taken place, or as to whether elections are free and equal for all members of society. Only with protection of voting rights and civil rights can the results of elections assure that the results of an election ensure the effectiveness of government of a democratic system.

The following chart indicates five criteria for democratic systems of government and with detailed articles, with a total of ten items. These ten items constitute ways of defining embedded democracy for our research purposes.

136 Wolfgang Merkel, “Embedded and Defective Democracies.” p. 36.

Figure 2.3. : Merkel’s dimensions, partial regimes and criteria of embedded democracy

Source: Merkel, 2004

Apart from the five criteria for embedded democracy outlined above, what is further important is that for Merkel, outside of that the political form of government and social situation, must be linked, he believes that a democratic form of government, for the sake of adaptability to the current regime, has to possess structural conditions to introduce complexity —whether in terms of internal social factors, or unceasingly changing external factors. Democratic systems of government must establish definite structures in order to complete each functional demand.

Concerning internal factors of the political system, the different elements that constitute a political system, on the one hand, mutually interact, depend on one another, and are embedded within on another. On the other hand, each is also independent, and this ensures the norms and specifications of the political system.

From the outside, these form the interactions of embeddedness in the political system, and are beneficial for the norms of the democratic system, and protect the system from internal external factors, allowing for the maintenance of stability.

Which is to say, in the course of the democratization of a political system or society, apart from inspecting these five criteria for the internal composition of a democratic system, a democratic system at the same time needs to have a civil society, and the social context, economic context, and orientation towards

international social —need to be mutually embedded, in order to achieve a stable democracy.

Consequently, for what is lacking in a system of government, without these five conditions, with a constitutional system unable to carry out its functions. The political system that results instead is a defective democracy. In other words, if these five conditions are not properly embedded, this cannot constitute a free democratic system. Merkel designates the following criteria:¹³⁷

I. Authoritarian regime II. Defective democracies

A. Exclusive Democracy: one or more segments of all adult citizens are excluded from the civil right of universal suffrage.

B. Domain democracy

（

Tutelary democracy

）

: the veto powers - such as the military, guerrillas, militia, entrepreneurs, landlords or multi-national corporations —take certain political domains out of the hands of democratically elected representatives.

C. Illiberal democracy: the principle of the rule of law is damaged, affecting the actual core of liberal self-understanding, namely the equal freedom of all individuals.

D. Delegative democracy: Governments, usually led by charismatic presidents, circumvent parliament, influence the judiciary, damage the principle of legality, undermine checks and balances, and shift the equilibrium of the balance of power unilaterally in favour of the (presidential) executive.

III. Liberal democracy

A point we should note here is that defective democracies do not necessarily cross over from an autocratic regime to a liberal democracy, finding themselves unable to transition. Defective democracies have their political rights, and under certain social, economic, and culture conditions, and may be able to preserve their modes of operation.¹³⁸ But from another point of view, these four categories of defective democracies do not have clear definitions, and in some case studies, defective democracies evidence hybrid structures. Which is to say, these four categories are not exclusive categories, and each category can include the characteristics of other subcultures.

These four categories are divided based on the ten criteria previously outlined:

Chart 2.1. : Four categories of democracy

Electoral regime

Political liberties

Civil rights Horizontal accountability

Effective power to govern

137 In the statistical table on page 51, according to 2002 data, Taiwan is classified as a liberal democracy.

Wolfgang Merkel. p. 49-52.

138 Wolfgang Merkel. p.48.

Exclusive

Democracy n/a n/a n/a

Domain

democracy n/a n/a

Illiberal

democracy n/a n/a

Delegative

democracy n/a

Source: Organized by the author

According to what has been shown through research, if countries with newly established democracies are categorized as defective democracies, there is not simply one reason of this, with a series of factors, leading to effects on political actors obtaining historical opportunities to take power, and leading to the failure of constitutional government to be achieved, and an evasion the demands of political accountability. Consequently, research into defective democracies needs to begin from taking into account the path of modernization, level of modernization, economic trends, social capital, civil society, economic trends, state and nation building, the type of authoritarian predecessor regime, transitional modus, political institutions, and international context.¹³⁹

Im Dokument The Political Participation of Taiwan's Labor: Public Perception and Legitimation (Seite 78-84)