Transition towards Democracy in Comparative Perspective

ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring-Summer 1991, pp. 99-121 TRANSITION TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE* Gary Zou Introduction The collapse of the colonial state system and emergence of the nationalist movement had generally not resulted in democ­ racy in the newly independent countries during the transition period of the 1950s and 1960s. Instead, political violence and disorder increased dramatically throughout the developing world. Subsequently, the rise of the authoritarian state in peri­ pheral societies prevailed. Huntington noted that numerous resources from various multinational organizations, in addi­ tion to U.S. AID, had been pouring into less developed coun­ tries assisting their economic development. However, little attention had been paid to their political development (Huntington, 1968). As Lucian Pye pointed out, Huntington challenged what he perceived to be the misguided conventional wisdom of the 1960's, "the belief that authoritarian govern­ ments are about to pass from this earth" (Pye, 1970: 1264). As the world faces a new "Great Transformation" today, Pye presents us a conclusive study, "Political Science and the *The paper is based on a presentation at the Conference of "Ten Years of Reform in China: Successes and Failures in Comparative Perspective," George Washington University, August 17-19, 1990. The author is indebted to Joseph Nyomarkay and Stanley Rosen for comments on various earlier versions of this article, and to the Ford Foundation for individual research grants. All the remaining errors are entirely the author's. The views expressed are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily represent his affiliation. 100 Gary Zou Crisis of Authoritarianism,” in his influential presidential address at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association: We are today confronted with a unifying challenge in the crisis of authoritarianism that is undermining the legitimacy of all types of authoritarian systems throughout the world, including the Marxist-Leninist regimes (Pye, 1990: 3). Throughout his article, he raises various cases across the board, including both communist and non-communist coun­ tries. The authoritarian rule, he suggests, is no longer com­ patible with the modernization process. Modernity is identi­ fied, in his article, as the major thrust of the driving-force that has brought the collapse of "all types of authoritarian systems throughout the world" {ibid.). It sounds to us that "authori­ tarian governments," if not in the 1960s then surely in the 1990s, "are about to pass from this earth" (op. cit.) in line with his hypothesis. Such a position, in my view, has to be carefully examined before making any assertions. First, there exists a qualitative differences between the collapse of the totalitarian regime and the transition towards democracy from authoritarian rule, even though both processes may concurrently take place around the world. Democracy cannot be conceived in the womb of the totalitarian regime, but it may evolve through authoritarian rule. On the one hand, what has happened in the Eastern European countries is obviously revolutions out of the rule of totalitarian regimes. On the other hand, the transition towards democracy in the NICs and other capitalist countries is characterized as evolution under authoritarian rule. There­ fore, the former should not be considered as a crisis of authori­ tarianism simply because these regimes are not characterized as authoritarian but rather totalitarian. The latter should be viewed as the success of authoritarianism, as democracy gen­ erally succeeds the tenure of authoritarian rule. On the one hand, what has happened in the Eastern European countries is obviously revolutions out of the rule of totalitarian regimes. On the other hand, the transition towards democracy in the NICs and other capitalist countries is characterized as evolu­ tion under authoritarian rule. Therefore, the former should not be considered as a crisis of authoritarianism simply because Transition towards Democracy 101 these regimes are not characterized as authoritarian but rather totalitarian. The latter should be viewed as the success of authoritarianism, as democracy generally succeeds the tenure of authoritarian rule. Second, Pye argues that the world system and market economy are two crucial variables that lead to crisis. He thus finds the adverse trend of the "Great Transformation," in contrast to what Polanyi observed in the 1940s, the world returning to the liberal, capitalist economy. It...