1 Uygar GKSUNGUR 1481787

DEMOCRATIZATION PROCESS
Introduction Democracy, as the broadest definition of the term suggests, is not the mere rule of people in todays modern world. This kind of understanding of democracy, also called maximalist definition of democracy, led some of the democracy promoters to define democracy with minimum number of standards such as electoral process and government functioning. However, as much as these kind of political factors, social and economic factors are also important in understanding the democracy and processes towards it. In the 80s and 90s, transition paradigm, even if it is not that broad in defining democracy as maximalists, in my opinion, still having some neglecting parts, became the main source of understanding the democratization process in the world. As Carothers (2002) asserts, this paradigm suggests a determinist approach to democratization processes and foresees the future of the countries that are struggling with its authoritarian rule as they are going through a set sequence of stages that eventually lead them to democratic regimes. The first stage is the opening of the country to political liberalization, second, it followed by the breakthrough stage, the replacement of old authoritarian rule with democratic system and last (after the two steps that covers transition) comes consolidation which is basically establishment of democracy promoting institutions in the society. Countries that are struggling with authoritarianism in 70s and 80s, are generally called by the term third wave of democratization and it is the last global trend of democratization in the world, if the 20102011 Middle East and North Africa protests will not led to a new one. According to Huntington (1991), these countries shares five main causes of need for democratization that are common to them and they would also have common processes as well. It is stated that to have a full democracy in these countries, transition alone could not be enough, consolidation process is also crucial to internalize the democracy in these societies. In this essay, first, I am going to discuss the differences between these two main processes, transition and consolidation and second, try to express the importance of institutionalization to make democracy as permanent system of politics in a country.

2 Uygar GKSUNGUR 1481787 Transition and Consolidation Comparison According to Huntingtons typology of transition of the third wave democracies, there are three different kind of transition; transformation, replacement and transplacement. The most important thing common in all of them is that they are all the results of the actions of elites in the society. Tensions between two different kind of elites in the society could result in democracy by the process of these three different ways which are respectively, changes promoted by the ruling elite itself, overthrown of the authoritarian elite by the new elites and negotiations between these two group of elites. It is also important to assert that none of the pure forms can be seen in real political arena and all of the changes are hybrids. Even if the authoritarian rule is perished in these processes, it does not necessarily mean that democracy achieved. Indeed, if we look at these countries today, most of them have either hybrid regimes or flawed democracies. So, transition to the democracy actually means the transfer of power to a new kind of elite who are preferred democracy over authoritarianism to benefit more from the political power. So, in order to have a full democracy in a country, consolidation is a vital and necessary process. Consolidation is the process of the development of the new democracy in which none of the actors thinking authoritarianism as an alternative. It is also important that democracy should be internally accepted in these countries without any external effect that could be artificial. I think democratic consolidation in personal sphere can be explained by the acceptance and in some cases defense of others right to pursuit of interest in the political arena, even if their interests are not compatible with yours and in political sphere, it can be explained by ensuring a participatory, free and not corrupt electoral system and functioning of government. Consolidation is needed by the democratization as much as the tough transition from authoritarian rule to a democratic one. Transition of the power from one elite to a new one is not enough to overrun authoritarianism, democratic consolidation is also necessary to internalization of democracy and lead the country to its final step; persistence of democracy. According to ODonnell (1996), consolidation also means that in elites perspective, the same close fit between formal rules and actual behavior of them. Consolidation process also has intimate relations with routinization of institutional mechanisms of democracy in the country which I am going to discuss.

3 Uygar GKSUNGUR 1481787 Institutionalizing Democracy Social organizations in the society are heavily dependent on standards and values of the society. Democracy and its most important part, fair and competitive elections, is no exception to this rule. If the consolidation occurred in a society, it means that democracy and its institutions accepted by the society and competing elites and it becomes legitimate and normal source of coming to the power. However, in an unconsolidated democracy, where democratic rule could not be embedded into the political life successfully, there could be less support for democracy and its institutions and actors could start to search alternatives that suited their ideals best. According to Stephan and Linz (1996) characteristics of a consolidated democracy are:
[] First, a vibrant civil society provides a check on state power. Second, political society involves the arrangements through which contests for political power are legitimately arranged. Third, a set of explicit rules to which all are bound is another precondition for democratic consolidation. Fourth, a democratic government requires an effective bureaucratic apparatus to maintain the monopoly of violence and to enforce law. Finally, a socially agreed-upon set of practices to mediate between state and market are crucial for democracy.

So, having elections does not easily mean a country has consolidated democracy, there are many aspects to it and elections need other institutions to protect its fairness and competitiveness. For Haggard and Kaufman (1994) democratic institutions are offering the opportunity of debate and peaceful contestation in times of social conflict and economic dilemmas. However, some of these conflicts and policies are not easy to agree upon during the times of crisis and in new democracies (unconsolidated ones) ruling elite generally by-pass the democratic institutions to pass the policy or reform. On the contrary, in consolidated democracies, executive authority is so reliant on contestation and accountability; it could not afford any popular backlash and reversal. Also, even if the policy was a success, there is still a possibility of soft authoritarianism in unconsolidated democracies, which could be used by the elite to extend its powers beyond the constitutional limitations by using the consent of the society. Also, some kinds of institutionalization are not meant to be beneficial for democratization. According to ODonnell (1996), some of the new democracies on their way to consolidation, do not suffer from lack of institutionalization but a different kind of institutionalism which are particularism, clientalism and nepotism, they show the lack of

4 Uygar GKSUNGUR 1481787 legitimacy and support for democratic system. These institutions also can be seen as characteristics of unconsolidated democracies. However, he also states that, in not all cases institutionalized democracy means a consolidated one and he differs them from each other as "consolidated" and "highly institutionalized" democracies. Conclusion To conclude, democratization processes of the worlds present countries do not necessarily have to be a progressive one. Expected and also needed full transition of worlds societies to democratic systems by transition and then consolidation is not happened yet except for very small number of countries and there are still many countries that have strict authoritarian regimes and most of them remain their feudal roots of charismatic leadership and oppression against the society by the ruling elite. There are also many hybrid regimes where political participation and civil liberties are still big obstacles before full democratization. According to Economists Democracy Index 2010, even in countries like France, Italy and Greece, which are the some of the cornerstones of democratic Western world, democracy in retreat. So, in my opinion even with the democratic consolidation and institutionalization of the democracy, we cannot talk about a persistent democracy in the world.

5 Uygar GKSUNGUR 1481787 References: Carother, T. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy. 2002. Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy index 2010. Democracy in retreat. 2009. Haggard et al. The Challenges of Consolidation. Journal of Democracy. 1994 Huntington, S. P. How? Processes of Democratization, the Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. 1991. ODonnell, G. A. Illusions about Consolidation. 1996. Stephan, A and Linz, J. Democracy and its Arenas. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. 1996