Political Transitions in East and South-East Asia - Essay Example

Various Approaches to Transitology Since the mid-1980s in political science under the influence of certain processes, a new direction of political studies – transitology - gradually begins to develop. If one examines this concept with a strictly etymological perspective, the transitological studies suggest analysis of the political transitional changes associated with the development of a new qualitative state of the political system. However, in practice the term “transitology” has acquired a narrower meaning, since the subject of research became the process of transition from autocratic to democratic forms of government. Therefore, the subject of transitology as a relatively independent discipline within political science is the problem of democratization. In fact, it is impossible to imagine the development of democracy in the modern world without adequate analysis of the basic theoretical concepts of the transition from authoritarianism to democracy and the definition of the general laws and specific features of the transition, which manifest themselves at the micro and macro levels of the political system. An important objective of this analysis is also a selection of basic conditions of democratization, which affect the pace, depth and character of the transformation of the political, economic and cultural systems of the countries undergoing the process of transformation, as well as have an impact on the consolidation of the existing democratic relations. In the framework of modern political science, there are several approaches to the analysis of transit societies. One can identify approaches proposed by Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C. Schmitter, Gerardo L Munck and Carol Skalnik Leff and Samuel Huntington as one of the most interesting in this regard. Despite the fact that each one of them has its own distinctive features, the approach proposed by Huntington can be regarded as the most versatile and wide. If the previous authors give a characterization of different modes of transition, Huntington sees it in the overall political context of development of various countries since the beginning of the twentieth century. In this regard, the concept of the wave of democratization is particularly important, as it gives an opportunity to get a more holistic view of the historical development of transitional forms. In their article, Modes of Transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Karl and Schmitter focus specifically on the participation of different types of actors, allowing them to identify a few basic types of transitions. Karl and Schmitter argue “transitions are produced by actors who choose strategies that lead to change from one kind of regime to another” (274). In addition, they note that often the results of such transitions can be unpredictable, regardless of the original intentions of the participants in this process. Such an understanding of transitions allows authors to designate the following types of transitions, namely as a result of a pact, imposition, reform, and revolution. The first type can be observed “when elites agree upon a multilateral compromise among themselves” (Karl and Schmitter 275). The second type of transition can be described as a period when the elite uses force to change the political regime. This process occurs in terms of confrontation between the elite and the incumbents. The third type suggests that “masses mobilize from below and impose a compromised outcome without resorting to violence” (Karl and Schmitter 275). Finally, the revolution is seen when a major part of the population uses a weapon to overthrow authoritarian rulers. Karl and Schmitter recognize that one can often observes the forms of transitions that combine elements of several of its types. This is determined by the characteristics of economic, political and social life of the country. In turn, in Modes of Transition and Democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective, Munck and Leff point out that the study of transitions should include not only an analysis of the situation which characterizes the process of transition, but also the post-transition state of society in political terms (345). This aspect is a feature of this approach as compared to that proposed by the previous authors. In their classification of forms of transition, they are guided by the source and impetus for of such changes. This enables them to identify the following four types of transitions: reform from below (Chile), reform through transaction (Brazil and Poland), reform through rupture (Argentina and Czechoslovakia), and revolution from above (Bulgaria). The authors give a description of all these types of transitions by analyzing the distribution of authority and privileged position among the various political forces (the ruling elite, the opposition, etc.). In comparison with these two approaches, the approach proposed by Huntington is more interesting. It allows paying special attention to his ideas on the modes of transition. The transition from dictatorial regimes to modern democracy is a global process that began in the last century and is implemented as a “transit wave.” Under the wave of democratization, Huntington understands “a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period of time” (location 353). Usually the wave of democratization is accompanied by liberalization of a significant number of dictatorships which did not become fully democratic systems. Huntington concluded that in the modern world there were three waves of democratization. Each of them affected a relatively small number of countries. The third wave of democratization began in 1974 and continues to this day. Huntington identifies three basic forms of transition: “transformation,” “replacement” and “transplacement,” which combines elements of the first and second forms. In the case when the power elite dominates the opposition groups, the transition to democracy is possible in the form of transformation that is a long process of reforming from above, through which it is possible to create economic, social and political preconditions of democracy. The relationship between reformers and conservatives in the government play a key role in this form of transition. Transformation is possible when the reformers dominate conservatives, government controls the opposition and moderate opposition groups control radical groups. During the “third wave,” 16 countries have made the transition to democracy through the transformation. Since this form of transition requires that the government was stronger than the opposition (especially in the first stage), the transformation can begin under the military regime, which controls the means of armed violence and oppression and does not leave many opportunities for the formation and activities of the opposition. It usually occurs in relatively economically developed systems that have developed the basic prerequisites of democracy, and the choice of development path depends only on the will of the ruling elite. The most illustrative examples of the transformation are Spain, Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico and Hungary. This form was also characteristic of South Africa, the USSR until August 1991, Ecuador, Peru, and Guatemala. Transformation has its own strong and weak aspects. On the one hand, it allows one to prepare the public and the elite to live in a democracy, teaches the art of compromise and usually those countries that have gone transformation, demonstrate strong enough institutions and processes of democracy. On the other hand, this way is long and not easy. Since the movement for democracy is provided by the political will of the reformatory parts of the ruling elite and has no support in the community, there is a risk of their failure in terms of people’s passivity. If the opposition is stronger than the government, and the conservatives and reactionaries in the government are much stronger than the reformers, transition is presented by replacement. Replacement is a relatively short transition of power from the dictatorial government to democratic forces in the political crisis. The main condition is the unity of the opposition, its radical and moderate factions. This often turns into a fight in the camp of winners after the overthrow of the dictatorial regime. Transition to democracy can be regarded as successful only when the superiority of forces is on the side of the moderate supporters of democracy. Personal dictators rarely voluntarily relinquish their power and go into retirement. Since the nature of their power has a pronounced personal rather than institutional nature, opponents of the regime can hardly maintain their position in the power structure, since their impact is negligible. Authoritarian system exists as long as the government is politically stronger than the opposition. The regime may weaken under the influence of a number of reasons: the military defeat (Argentina, Philippines, Portugal, Yugoslavia); the failure of foreign adventures (Greece); the impact of democratization in neighboring countries (Czechoslovakia, East Germany), the dictators death (Croatia). Replacement occurs only when the army either supports the opposition or refuses to use force against its own people. This is possible when the opposition acts as a unified force that can attract the intelligentsia, clergy, students, labor unions, small and medium entrepreneurs, etc. There are various forms of replacement: an armed insurrection (Portugal, Romania), the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia, East Germany, the Baltic States), etc. This form is shorter than the transformation and therefore less painful if it is not accompanied by armed violence. Finally, transplacement is a process of interaction between the advocates of liberalization and democratization in the government and the moderate opposition, during both sides reach agreement on the political and legal conditions of transition to democracy. Transplacement has several stages. Usually, the initiative comes from the reformers in power who seek to mitigate the dictatorship, taking a number of measures to liberalize the regime. The opposition uses this situation to mobilize mass support for their demands. Radical groups are calling for revolutionary struggle. It serves as an irritant for the conservative forces providing the policy crackdown. If reformers manage to defend their positions in the government as well as the moderate opposition is able to defeat the radicals, this situation results in a long and complex process of negotiation between these forces, leading to a compromise solution aimed at a peaceful transition to a democratic political system. One can point out the following main conditions of transplacement: the presence of parity between the government and the opposition and the prevalence of moderate partners in the structures of government and opposition. Classic examples of the transition to democracy through this form in the 70s - 80s are Poland, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Korea, Honduras, and Bolivia. Some elements of the mixed form were presented in Chile and South Africa. To sum up, in comparison with other researchers, Huntington gives a more in-depth analysis and evaluation of various forms (modes) of transition. He points out the ways of the transition to a democratic regime, features of the distribution of power between the various political actors, as well as determines the advantages and disadvantages of each form. Moreover, Huntington successfully considers each of the forms of transition in its historical perspective that enables one to obtain a more holistic and comprehensive picture on this issue. Works Cited Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Print. Karl, Terry Lynn, and Philippe C. Schmitter. “Modes of Transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe.” International Social Science Journal 43.2 (1991): 269-284. Print. Munck, Gerardo L., and Carol Skalnik Leff. “Modes of Transition and Democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics 29.3 (1997): 343-362. Print. Read More