11.03.2014 Views

Participation and Democracy: Dynamics, Causes ... - Jacobs University

Participation and Democracy: Dynamics, Causes ... - Jacobs University

Participation and Democracy: Dynamics, Causes ... - Jacobs University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

has impacted generations of academic scholars: “The more well-to-do a nation, the<br />

greater the chances that it will sustain democracies” (Lipset 1960: 48). 4<br />

Considering the eminent consequences of modernization, Lipset also acknowledged<br />

Marx’ prediction with regard to the relationship between capitalism <strong>and</strong> societal<br />

changes. His failures, among others his prediction about a proletarian revolution, are<br />

well known, but Marx (1990 [1867]; 1993 [1858]) succeeded in identifying very early<br />

the specific political <strong>and</strong> social consequences of a society’s development towards<br />

capitalism. And even though workers did not become the ruling class, they have been<br />

the ones strongly <strong>and</strong> successfully pushing for exp<strong>and</strong>ing universal suffrage <strong>and</strong> the<br />

rights of political parties (Rueschemeyer, Stephens <strong>and</strong> Stephens 1992). This line of<br />

argument also follows assumptions according to which modernization brings along<br />

social mobilization <strong>and</strong>, in the end, mass participation (Deutsch 1961).<br />

In contrast to the designated role that Marx earmarked for the working class, Lipset<br />

attributed a special role in pushing for democratization to the middle class of a society.<br />

For Lipset, democracy was a direct outcome of capitalism. Looking at the history of<br />

today’s representative democracies, his argument finds support in the fact that<br />

democratic societies have almost exclusively occurred in modern capitalist societies. In<br />

the past, this supposition (<strong>and</strong> the linear interpretation of the relationship between<br />

socioeconomic factors <strong>and</strong> democracy) has (mis)led some scholars to present<br />

“guidelines for democratizers” (Huntington 1991) – practical advice <strong>and</strong> instructions on<br />

how to create democracy. Duly applied, so the impression, it works like a recipe for a<br />

good lunch menu.<br />

During the last years, non-linear approaches to modernization have come to the fore of<br />

social science research. Inglehart <strong>and</strong> Welzel (2005: 25), for example, have followed<br />

Bell (1973) in his differentiation between two distinct phases of modernization:<br />

industrialization <strong>and</strong> postindustrialization. Both phases differ significantly in the way<br />

4 To illustrate the importance of Lipset’s research: His 1959 article ranks amongst the all-time top-ten<br />

citations of the discipline’s top journal, the American Political Science Review (Siegelman 2006).<br />

“Excluding Duverger’s law on the effect of single-member districts on party systems, it may be the<br />

strongest empirical generalization we have in comparative politics to date” Boix (2003: 1-2).<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!