Thesis: Relationship between democracy and civil war is open ended

Download 13.19 Kb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size13.19 Kb.
Kissane and Sitter, Civil Wars…..

  • Thesis: Relationship between democracy and civil war is open ended

    • Potential pluralism and the winner’s quest for dominance are therefore closely linked to regime outcomes

  • Civil Wars, Democratization, and Regime Outcomes

    • Choice of five cases to study all sharing the following characteristics

      • Involves armed clashes that result in a considerable # of violent deaths

      • Govt. v. armed opposition

      • Takes place within one political unit (State)

    • Differing outcomes within cases

    • Regime consolidation

      • Dynamics of regime consolidation links to the winner’s control of state institutions

      • Fundamental distinction between regimes: Can you remove a government without bloodshed (i.e. electorally)

      • Alexander: Democracy can only happen when the losers become moderates and leave their civil war past behind them

        • Others say it happens when BOP shifts toward leftist forces committed to democracy

      • Kissane: Independent variable determining regime consolidation is the strength of the right vis a vis civil war losers….economic development creates strong working class organization and a vigorous civil society….anti-democratic right becomes less able to establish electoral dominance and exclusion of the left carries heavier costs for the right

      • Three Key sets of variables

        • Unity and cohesiveness of the winners

        • Institutional means by which right maintains dominance

        • Extent to which losers adopt moderate strategies

  • The Fate of the Winning Coalition

    • Key variable determining whether military victory resulted in political dominance was fate of winning coalition

      • Ireland: Coalition dissolved and subsequent politics was marred by conflict

      • Finland: Coalition cracked due to disputes of regime type

      • Greece: American pressure helped keep Centre and Right coalition in place

      • Hungary: Broad national coalition in place….however no fundamental agreement on role of monarchy….this meant that a counter-revolutionary force came into play and broke up the coalition

      • Spain: Franco tactfully used memory of civil war to maintain winning coalition

  • Institutional Manipulation

    • Four of five cases…..electoral rules of the games were manipulated

    • Institutional manipulation…..depended on winners’ preferences, unity and strategy…..this in turn depends on whether or not civil war was fought over democracy or not.

      • Ireland no real institutional manipulation

      • Finland: Anti-communist laws meant social democrats only party on the left

      • Greece: Right used old census (one in which villages, the Right’s stronghold, still had most of their population intact) to ensure their parties came to power under a semi-majoritarian system

      • Hungary: Prime Minister’s direct control over local authorities meant that he could use them to manipulate the vote….also franchise included only about 28% of population, excluded Peasantry

      • Spain: Openly Fascist

  • The Losers’ strategies

    • Ireland: Losers’ adopted electoral strategy to outflank winners on socioeconomic issues….moderated in this sense

    • Finland: Coalition was soon formed between winner’s and losers because Social Democrats came to be seen as more moderate than the other extreme right/left that the winners’ had to deal with.

    • Greece: Loser was also divided……EDA was seen as a Communist puppent and so a new party was formed to counteract them

      • Division on both left and right…..led military takeover in 1967

    • Hungary: Socialists…..signed a deal that brought them in mainstream electoral competititon

    • Spain: Disarray in losers camp meant that there was very little question of a ‘strategy’




Winners' coalition


Losers' strategies


Democratic consolidation (alternation in power)

Divided (minority)


Significant moderation


Democratic consolidation (losers in coalition)


Restrictive (mildly)

Significant moderation


Hybrid: Winners dominate politics



Little moderation


Hybrid: Winners dominate politics



Significant moderation


Winners' authoritarianism


Restrictive (severely)

Little moderation

  • combination of a divided winners' coalition and significant moderation on the losing side (Ireland and Finland) appears sufficient to lead to democratic consolidation.

  • However, where the winning coalition maintains unity and the rules for competition are restrictive (Spain and Hungary), the losers' strategy matters little or not at all.

  • Where the losers do not adopt a moderate stance and institutions are restrictive, even a divided winners' coalition may prevail.

    • In short where two of the three variables worked against democratic consolidation, an authoritarian outcome was guaranteed

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page