An Introduction - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 | democracy challenged instance, the dominant party managed to block a transfer of power for forty years, including a decade when it enjoyed little popularity, but it also managed to maintain a fairly positive, and gradually improving, human rights record. All semi-authoritarian regimes take steps to preserve their core, namely the power ofthe central government, even ifit means resorting to nondemocratic methods. They differ, however, in their assessment ofwhat constitutes a dangerous challenge to that power. As a result, such regimes show a great deal ofvariation concerning issues such as freedom of the press and individual liberties. These differences can be quite visible, as the case studies in the present study show. Semi-authoritarian regimes also differ in terms of their internal dynamics and possibilities for further change. In this regard, it is possible to differentiate among three types of semi-authoritarian regimes: regimes in equilibrium, which have established a balance among competing forces and are thus quite stable; regimes in decay, where the authoritarian tendencies appear increasingly strong and the counterbalancing factors weak, suggesting the possibility that the government will revert to full authoritarianism; and regimes that are experiencing dynamic change that may undermine the government’s ability to maintain the status quo, forcing it into opening up new political space and thus providing the possibility ofincremental progress toward democracy. All three types ofsemi-authoritarian regimes have the potential to become democratic at some point. I am not assuming that democratic transformation is impossible anywhere. However, while semi-authoritarian regimes experiencing dynamic change can become democratic through incremental change, regimes that are in equilibrium would have to undergo too stormy an upheaval before such change could take place. Decaying regimes are probably those least likely to democratize, because they are caught in a downward spiral that may lead back to authoritarianism. The semi-authoritarianism ofequilibrium is the purest form, a stable condition that has already persisted over a long period and is likely to continue in the absence ofupheaval. Semi-authoritarian regimes in equilibrium have proven that they can handle ordinary challenges— such as the activities ofopposition parties or structural change brought about by a steady period ofeconomic growth—without a
The Challenge of Semi-Authoritarianism | 21 major modification in the structure of power. Egypt (discussed in a later chapter) and Indonesia before the fall of President Suharto are good examples ofsemi-authoritarianism in equilibrium—some of their citizens would say stagnation. An interesting feature of such countries is that political equilibrium, or stagnation, can persist even while the countries experience rapid economic growth. Until 1998, Indonesia was one ofthe most dynamic emergent Asian economies; Egypt’s growth has been more modest, but the country has undergone far-reaching economic restructuring since the 1970s and steady economic growth for sustained periods. The two cases suggest that economic growth per se does not necessarily break the equilibrium ofa semi-authoritarian regime. Indeed, what made political transformation possible in Indonesia was not economic growth. Rather, it was a sudden economic crisis in the late 1990s that caused widespread hardship and eroded the legitimacy ofa regime whose major accomplishment had been economic growth. The semi-authoritarianism ofdecay is found in countries that are stagnating or declining economically and socially. This is the most discouraging form of semi-authoritarianism, because it is likely to regress toward full-fledged authoritarianism. Azerbaijan (discussed in a later chapter), Kazakhstan, Malawi, and Zambia, among many others, are examples ofthis semi-authoritarianism ofdecay. In many ofthese countries, the democratic stimulus was relatively weak from the beginning. It came from the outside, from the general post–Cold War political climate and from direct pressure by the international community, but there was a dearth ofdomestic forces to ensure continued government responsiveness and accountability. In other countries, such as Zimbabwe, there was real internal demand for political change, but also a government determined to stay in power at all costs. Such a situation leads to violence and further political decay rather than democracy. In all countries experiencing the semi-authoritarianism ofdecay, there are residual areas ofopenness. There has been no formal return to the single-party system, and opposition political parties as well as civil society organizations are still allowed. Some independent media organizations still operate despite the many restrictions, the frequent arrests ofjournalists, and, above all, the ever present possibility that the government will shut them down. But the political space is under
Page 1 and 2: The Challenge of Semi-Authoritarian
Page 17: The Challenge of Semi-Authoritarian
Page 27: 256 | democracy challenged 9. A sim

An Introduction - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?