A Theoretical Understanding of Transition

A THEORETICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF
TRANSITION
Demokrasi & Demokratisasi
fahrul_muzaqqi@yahoo.com
PREVIEW
Era baru politik Internasional pasca Perang
Dingin dan Runtuhnya Uni Soviet
Gelombang demokratisasi III
Serangan 11 September 2001
Kebingungan pemahaman yg cenderung
subjektif dan partikular dg pemaksaan suatu
keteraturan intelektual daripada
mendasarkan objektifitas pd realitas
fahrul_muzaqqi@yahoo.com 2
A THOERETICAL UNDERSTANDING
Theories of Democratization:
1.Modernization theory
2.Historical Sociology theory (structuralism)
3.Transition theory (agency theory)
Sometimes a distinction is made simply between
structuralist theories (modernization and
historical sociology) and agency approaches
(transition theory) because of their very different
positions regarding structure and agency.
Three key dimensions of democratization,
namely the state, civil society and globalization.
Modernization
For Giddens (1990), modernity is inherently globalizing,
that is it spreads across the world, creating one uniform
culture. Modernization theory, in other words, implicitly
links democratization with globalization
It links the spread of democracy to modernity and the
Enlightenment idea of the universality of progress.
Lipset (1959): a mix of Weberian notions of the modern
state and the preoccupation (minat) of classical sociology
with describing the social transitions from feudalism to
capitalism, from traditional to modern, from ascription to
achievement which occurred in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries.
Modernization
A modern society, then, is essentially a product of
capitalism.
Lipset presumed that modernity was a single universal
experience, leading to essentially similar societies and
states. As a theory of change, modernization is
functionalist and economistic, in that it sees democracy as
an outcome of capitalism. It associates economic growth in
a causal relationship with progress. Modernization is also
predictive: democracy appears in those societies that are
able to replicate the original transition to capitalism
(Roxborough 1979) and become enmeshed (terlibat) in
global economic structures.
Capitalism is the heart of democracy!
Modernization Theory Today
Generally, todays modernizationists do not claim
direct causality between capitalism and democracy.
Diamond (1999) has been particularly influential in
updating modernization theory. In the process, he has
shifted modernization away from a discussion on the
causes of democracy towards a focus on
consolidation.
He has picked up the 1960s concern with mass
participation and political culture in newly modernized
states and emphasizes, in particular, the role of
political culture and a dynamic civil society for
democratization.
Historical Sociology
This emphasis on structures that the approach is
sometimes termed structuralism.
Historical sociology and structuralism are often used
interchangeably in democratization studies.
The historical/sociological approach to democratization has
two particular intellectual origins:
1. It offers instead a state-centered view, bringing the state
back in to politics (Evans, Rueschmeyer and Skocpol
1985).
2. It also drew explicitly on a critique of the short-termism
and causal simplicity of modernization as an explanation of
democratization (Rueschmeyer, Stephens and Stephens
1992). It is, inevitably, a much more diffuse approach to
democratization than modernization theory, with a primary
interest in explaining, not predicting, outcomes.
Historical Sociology
Structuralists are interested in how the changing
relationship between the state, and classes shapes the
political system.
Barrington Moores (1966) comparative analysis of eight
big countries, Britain, France, the US, Germany, Russia,
Japan, China and India, through the nineteenth century
and into the twentieth, identified the different historical
trajectories that each had travelled to reach modernity.
Fascism and Communism simply constituted a different
version of modernity, resulting from very different sets of
relationships between collective actors and states. For
Moore, outcomes depended on the interactions between
three important classes the peasantry, the landed upper
class and the bourgeoisie.
Routes to Modernity
Barrington Moore identified three routes to
modernity:
1. a bourgeois revolution, leading to
capitalism and democracy;
2. revolution from above, leading to
industrialization and fascism; and
3. revolution from below, leading to
communism.
I. The Bourgeois Revolution
Moores understanding of the bourgeois path was
based on the historical experiences of Britain,
France and the US.
He conceptualized the transformation of the pre-
modern state into a democracy as a result of two
stages:
1. the reduction in the overall size of the peasantry
and an end to its organic dependence on the
landed class; and
2. a realignment (penyusunan ulang) of upper-class
interests around the dominance of commercial
and industrial interests.
II. Revolution from Above
This is the path of conservative modernization.
Exemplified most clearly by Germany and Japan, it
combines the development of capitalism in agriculture
and industry, alongside state-directed change.
In both Germany and Japan, the tension between
economic modernization and attempts to prevent social
change led to the rise of militarism and ultimately to
fascism.
Revolution from above was a result of:
1. the survival of a large small and middle peasantry,
despite the rise of the market;
2. the emergence of commercially-minded landed classes;
and
3. the development of a centralized and strong state.
III. Revolution from Below
This is the path to modernity through communism and
peasant revolution. It occurred in the twentieth century
in Russia and China.
Commercial agriculture failed to emerge in either
country, although there were attempts at
modernization and a significant increase in labor
repression in the nineteenth century.
Revolution from below thus depended on:
1. the survival (kelangsungan hidup), numerically and
culturally, of the peasantry;
2. a weak landed class; and
3. an absolutist state.
Transition Studies
The transition approach, or, as it is sometimes termed,
the agency approach, sees democracy as created by
conscious, committed actors, providing that they
possess a degree (mempunyai kesepakatan) of luck
and show a willingness to compromise.
Democracy is not, therefore, a question of waiting for
economic conditions to mature or the political
struggles unleashed by economic change to be won.
The transition school argues that both
modernizationists and structuralists see the economy,
history and development as overdetermining political
outcomes.
Transition Studies
The intellectual starting point for transition approaches is
Rustows (1970) critique of modernization.
He hypothesizes that the creation of democracy is a
dynamic process in the context of a prolonged (panjang)
and inconclusive political struggle (Rustow 1970: 352),
which passes through three stages a preparatory phase,
a decision phase, in which the choices and negotiations of
a small circle of leaders play a particularly crucial role
(Rustow 1970: 356), and a habituation phase in which
citizens and leaders fully adapt to the new system. These
stages were later transformed into liberalization, transition
and consolidation.
Transition Studies
In 1986, Schmitter, ODonnell and Whitehead edited the
seminal transitologist analysis of democratization,
Transitions from Authoritarian Rule
It focused on the processes of democratization by
examining the interactions, pacts (pakta) and bargains
struck between authoritarian leaders and the democratic
opposition. These deals led to a transition, a kind of half-
way house between authoritarianism and consolidated
democracy, in which the institutional rules are laid down
for the practice of democracy.
Authoritarianism Consolidated democracy
Transition Studies
Successful transitions, it was emphasized, depend
upon agreements between elites, including
generally the outgoing authoritarian leaders.
In none of their cases did democracy appear
predetermined by the structural situation in which
the struggles take place and pacts are made.
They concluded that skilful leadership, aided by
luck, was the key to outcomes which lead to the
establishment of democratic procedures for
government.

A Theoretical Understanding of Transition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Theoretical Understanding of Transition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A THEORETICAL

Demokrasi & Demokratisasi

Authoritarianism Consolidated democracy

You might also like