Alex Barnwell
Professor Curtis
POSC 1040
29 November 2018
The Cause of Democratization
As long as people have been studying political science, democracy has been a concept that is both intriguing and polarizing. right to freely choose those who we cede some of our power and rights to that resonates with people. As more and more data is collected about countries and political scientists evaluate different countries and their regime type there is a big question that is raised: What causes whether or not a country is democratic? Further, what one factor is the most important cause of whether a country is democratic or authoritarian? Why and how does this factor influence regime type? I argue that it is the average income and wealth per person in a country that has the greatest impact in determining the regime type of that country. First, I will give an explanation of average income per capita as a factor in democratization and how this factor should affect democratization. Then, I will show how this factor manifests itself as a key determinant of democracy or the lack thereof in Brazil and South Sudan where the average income per capita is vastly different. Through my research, it has become evident that higher income levels correlate positively with the presence of democratic institutions within a country.
Which Factor is Most Important
Political scientists have been theorizing as to what causes democracy for centuries. Among the theories are average education level, size of the middle class, degree of capitalism, political culture, presence of natural resources and average income per capita. There are also in some cases inverse theories with regards to the effects of more or less of the same factor. For instance, some argue that the presence of natural resources in the Middle East lends itself to dictatorship and excessive regime power while others suggest that natural resource reserves can be used to help sustain democracy (Geddes, 595). Some believe that international factors are hardly relevant to democratization while others argue the effect is substantial. Though all of these factors certainly have some effect on democratization, by far the most convincing cause of democracy is average income per capita and the distribution of this income among citizens. Higher levels of economic development combined with a fairly equal distribution of this income directly move a society towards democracy.
Before the reasoning for how average per capita causes democracy can be explored, it is important to first look at the indisputable figures that show the correlation between average income per capita and level of democracy. In fact, “one of the most empirical regularities in political economy is the relationship between income per capita and democracy” (Muller, 808). An important thing to note with regard to this is that these countries largely did not begin as democratic nations and then experience economic growth. Rather, they experienced economic growth and then moved to a democratic transition. This is an extremely relevant and important distinction that exemplifies income level being the key driving force behind the institution of democracy and not the other way around.
Increased Income Causes Democracy, But How?
There are a handful of different theories that explain the causal mechanism behind the correlation between economic development and democratization. Among the different mechanisms that I find the most convincing is the modernization theory and income distribution. Simply put, the modernization theory posits that “increasing education, equality, urbanization, experience of working in factories, and the weakening of traditional loyalties to tribe and village—all correlates of economic development—would result in citizens with more tolerant and participatory attitudes who would demand a say in government” (Lipset, 52). As the people in society become wealthier, they naturally desire more autonomy and freedom to control their own resources. People in developing countries have to spend more resources focusing on securing necessities and have less time or money left over to effectively push for more political rights. This leaves these people extremely susceptible to oppressive authoritarian regimes as the few wealthy and powerful see the opportunity to monopolize the power.
In addition to generic economic progress causing democracy, it is important to remember that a relatively equal distribution of this wealth is also a vital mechanism that causes increasing average income per capita to result in democracy. Relatively low levels of inequality foster an environment prone to democracy. Elites are willing to give up some of their power to democracy in order to avoid the potential for revolution from the large and powerful middle class (Boix). Democracy with this large middle class is stable and keeps the majority of the country happy while still giving the poor a voice. Democracy gives the wealthy a stable and predictable environment to profit off of their business expertise with assured property rights. This makes democracy increasingly enticing to citizens as average wealth per person increases as it does not inhibit their opportunities as much as authoritarianism. When the distribution of wealth is equal and the middle class is strong, the wealthy elites do not have to fear the potential for the redistribution of their wealth through taxes as a result of instituting democracy (Acemoglu). This moves the country towards democracy because of the increased stability allowing politicians to respond to recession through temporary high taxation. This allows wealth to be redistributed in response to recessions to appease the people without risking revolution or changing the political system (Acemoglu).
Analysis of Brazil and South Sudan
The effects of both economic progress or the lack thereof either causing or inhibiting the institution of democracy are well represented in the opposing cases of Brazil and South Sudan. Brazil and South Sudan’s Freedom House scores are 78 and 2 respectively, with a score of 1 being totally not free and a score of 100 being totally free (Freedom House). The average annual income per household in Brazil and South Sudan is $8,580 and $390 USD respectively (Average Income). Brazil has a regime that democratized as a result of increased average income and South Sudan is a regime that fails to move to democracy largely because of its drastically low average income number. Next, I will examine both of these countries individually and draw parallels to the previously discussed theory and its effects on democratization and the lack thereof in these two countries.
Like many Latin American countries, Brazil has not always been democratic and previously operated under an authoritarian regime. The country benefited from effective economic policies that resulted in economic growth and an expanding middle class (Pio). All seemed to be working well with the military controlled authoritarian regime until a worldwide economic crisis hit in 1978 (Pio). Protests began to break out and the “military launched a gradual democratic transition in 1979” (Pio). Once the country started moving towards democracy and continued protests over economic discontent broke out, the military realized they would be unable to take back the power they once had and the democracy in Brazil today was established (Pio). This example supports the previously discussed theory where democratization is a result of economic development. During Brazil’s economic progression, the expansion of the middle class due to relative wealth equality and an increase in average wealth enabled the citizens to take more control of their political rights. When economic crisis came, the people were naturally discontented at the poor performance of the leaders they did not even get to choose. They responded with protest and pushed towards democracy until they got it. The precursors for democracy arose from the economic development and democracy was a result. Since then, Brazil’s democracy has shown all the key signs of a stable democracy. The president and representatives are chosen through free and fair elections, there is protection of basic human rights and stable private property rights, and rival parties are allowed to freely rise and challenge existing parties (Freedom House). While it does still deal with high levels of corruption among elected officials, Brazil’s Freedom House score of 78 has them well within the list of free countries in the world, and economic development is certainly a big reason why.
On the other end of the spectrum, South Sudan (Freedom House score of 2) is a striking example of a country with citizens who have yet to push towards democracy due to the strikingly low average income levels of $390/household/year (Average income). The wealth is very unequally distributed as few political elites dominant the wealth from South Sudan’s massive oil exports (South Sudan). This money has essentially funded militia that have further perpetuated South Sudan’s ongoing civil war. These militias are constantly attacking and displacing citizens and leading to large amounts of unrest. South Sudan is also stricken with immense poverty. Over 80% of the population is poor and lives on less than $1 USD per day (About South). Even though the country is endowed with many rich natural resources, the authoritarian regime thrives and the rights of the people are practically non-existent. All of the conflict and poverty has made it very difficult for South Sudan to make any sustainable growth. The citizens have too little income and financial mobility to be able to focus on politics and pushing for rights. Additionally, the citizens of South Sudan simply do not have the means for protecting themselves from civil warfare, much less revolting for rights. There is no incentive for the wealthy elite to push for democracy. Since the distribution of wealth is so vastly unequal and so many live in poverty, democratization would bring people into power who would support very high taxes to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy elites to the large impoverished population. For this reason, those with the most power are unlikely to move towards democracy, instead they chose to strengthen their grip on the country through force. With such a low Freedom House score of 2, South Sudan is among the top 10 least free nations in the world, a sad reality and one that doesn’t seem to be on a path to change anytime soon.
Concluding Thoughts
In summation, my findings conclude that economic development and an increasing average income per capita and growing middle class are the most important factors that cause a country to democratize. Through modernization, its results, and a more equal income distribution, this economic development causes countries to democratize. Brazil is a striking example of this theory in action and South Sudan is an inverse example of what happens to political and personal rights when economic development is inhibited and a strict authoritarianism remains. This has serious implications when it comes to the potential democratization of many African and Middle Eastern countries in the future. A lot of these countries are experiencing increasing economic development and it will be intriguing to see how this theory plays out with regards to the future political regime types of these countries. One of the limitations of this theory is that it has held true in previous centuries, but many political scientists are skeptical as to whether economic development will be a driving force in the future democratization of the African and Middle Eastern countries. Regardless of what the future holds, the relationship between economic development and democratization is undeniable and is certainly something that needs to be seriously considered when predicting the future democratization of countries all over the world.
Bibliography
Geddes, Barbara. “What Causes Democratization.” Oxford Handbooks, Oxford University Press,
16 June 2017,www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-029. Accessed: 11/27/2018
Muller, Edward N. “Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality.” American
Sociological Review, vol. 53, no. 1, 1988, pp. 50–68. JSTOR, JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/2095732. Accessed: 11/27/2018
Lipset, S. M. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political
legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53: 69–105.
Boix, C. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Accessed: 11/27/18
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. 2001. A theory of political transitions. American Economic
Review, 91: 938–63. Accessed: 11/27/18
“Freedom in the World 2018.” Freedom House, 8 May 2018, freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
world/freedom-world-2018.
“Average Income around the World.” Worlddata.info, www.worlddata.info/average-income.php.
Accessed: 11/27/18
Pio, Carlost. “Brazil.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 31 May
2013, www.cfr.org/expert-brief/brazil. Accessed: 11/27/18
“South Sudan Elites Using Oil Money to Fund Militias and Get Rich, Says Report.” What next
for Sudan after Bashir's Nomination for a Third Term? – Sudan Tribune: Plural News
and Views on Sudan, www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article64879. Accessed: 11/27/18
“About South Sudan.” UNDP in South Sudan,
www.ss.undp.org/content/south_sudan/en/home/countryinfo.html Accessed: 11/27/18