Tilly Democracy, de-democracy and democratization

This month I have been mostly reading about the process towards democracy or away from. As most of you already know the literature on democracy is a confusing one but I think there are some basic points. Tilly (2007) attempts to explain that democracy is not a liner process that in fact countries go through democratization (suffrage and expansion of voting rights) and again through dedemocratization when those rights are taken away and the process continues. He argues here that there are 3 factors that are useful in explaining when each of the process will take place.

In this rich historical narrative and analysis Tilly offers a reinterpretation of the interwoven processes of democracy, democratization and de-democratization. His goal is to show  that the process of democratization is not an easy yes/no switch but instead it is a range of variations. Tilly theorized that for democracy to develop in any regime, change must occur in three areas:  the integration of trust-based social networks into public politics, the insulation of public politics from the major inequalities in society, and the reining-in of "autonomous centers of power”.  Beyond these three, other factors which also affect the process of democratization are the breadth of the population enjoying extensive rights, the equality of the population enjoying equal rights and obligations based on their ethnicity, and protection regarding the state’s arbitrary action with mutually binding consultation with bribes and threats on one end of the spectrum and all citizens enjoy due process clear benefits based on the category of the recipient on the other.

Tilly’s strength is that he wrote a book that is easy to understand and makes intuitive sense at many levels. However, while historical analysis is a great tool for investigation it is not as powerful to some extent as quantitative methodology for this kind of analysis.  The author meanders into discussions that do not necessarily support his arguments. For example, when discussing the role of social networks in 19th century America he does not present a counterfactual which would have shown that without social networks democracy would have failed instead he goes onto a discussion about networks in Argentina and Mexico.

Tilly defines democratization as a response to popular demands by the state. However, he does not discuss what happens to democracy when and if the popular demands are undemocratic. In today’s world of internet and unending news cycles the majority is whoever can shout the loudest and what happens when those loud voices are undemocratic.  Consider this; there were more than 2 million people marching for the resignation of Mubarak but in a country of over 80 million people what appears to be a majority at the Tahir square is a tiny minority. Pundits and scholars alike have argued that this is a popular movement but we have no idea if the other 70 plus million people wanted this. I am not arguing that this was an undemocratic move but I think given how easy it is to spread a message for those with the means popular is not always synonymous with democratic. Is it possible that at least in developing countries the urban voice is now the voice of the majority?  A good theory has to be able to present both sides of the argument and with stand simple criticism as has been presented here.

Tilly shows South Africa as a country with structural and  categorical inequalities that have slowed down the process of democracy leading the country on a path toward de-democratization. The debate on inequality is important but unlike Przeworski (2010), Tilly takes it as a given that democracy should result in social and economic equality. Social equality and political equality are different processes and the path to each of them is therefore not the same. Economic inequality in South Africa has a long history and I am not sure that it is fair to expect sweeping changes a decade or so after the change in political power. For a long time blacks in South Africa did not get the same level and kind of education as the whites and coloreds.  In order to rectify social inequalities a majority of people will need to be retrained and to so this will drain government resources. As things stand South Africa has the most advanced welfare system in the region and yet things remain unequal there. I am not sure that democracy should be expected to shoulder the burden of social inequality.

Another one of Tilly’s arguments is that a state needs to create strong institutions before it can be democratic. Alternatively he argues that weak states are more likely to de-democratize than strong or medium strength state. This is an argument that has face validity but Tilly does not explain how it is possible that we have strong undemocratic Middle Eastern States. Comparatively speaking African states are much weaker than Middle Eastern states and yet there is a stronger move towards democratization in African states than in Middle Eastern states. By 2004 44/48 Sub-Saharan states had held elections and in more than 2/3 of those countries they have continued to hold free and fair elections and the countries have on average higher Freedom House civil liberties rankings than comparable Middle Eastern states  (Jackson, Lindburg 2006, Ross)

While I like the book because it is easy to understand I think we also risk over using the term democracy. If every country is at sometimes democratic or de-democratizing does this mean there are no undemocratic countries?