Blog Post 1 – Chris Hollenbeck

While this chapter was essentially an overview of the democratization process and the terms that we should be familiar with, and is thus not leaving itself open to critique, there are a few instances where I the authors’ theory was lacking.

Smith and Sell’s investigation into the theory that a certain level of development would result in a move towards democracy is a theory they should consider revising. Their general hypothesis is flawed, because by measuring development in terms of GDP per capita and linking that to the ability to become more democratic, you are saying essentially that the more wealthy the average person is, the more likely they are to propose a change. But general theory would suggest that most people are willing to change when times are tough, because anything is better than the current situation. The threshold for tolerance of the status quo is much higher during times of economic growth, because why change what is clearly working. It would even be plausible to assume that the majority of people would tolerate some level of political abusiveness if the economy were doing well.

Therefore, in this example I believe Smith and Sell to be backwards in their assumptions. Now clearly one could argue, as Smith and Sell do, that if the people have not reached a certain level of social education, which is more common in states with a stronger economy, they cannot possibly know the benefits that democratization could hold. However, the move towards democracy is a large step and without proper institutions in place, could even temporarily stunt the growth of a states economy, which would make people hesitant to push for a change if they are already relatively wealthy.

On the contrary, table 2.3 shows more lower and lower-middle states transitioned in that third phase of democratization than did the upper-middle and upper states. So I would argue that Smith and Sell should have been measuring the willingness of poor states to transition instead. Again, one could argue that there were a larger number of poor states that transitioned because some states were already democratic and thus not included in the measurement; however if we are strictly looking at a states change in democratic level, the poorer states changed more during the third push towards democracy (Smith, 36).

This chapter also relates heavily to the current negotiation process occurring in Colombia between the government and the FARC terrorist group. There are essentially three parallels that can be drawn between the two: one is whether or not this negotiation constitutes a more democratic change, the second is how this deal will affect power within Colombia, and finally if the hardliners and radicals can be controlled enough to allow for peace to be considered.

Technically speaking, although the FARC has been classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and undoubtedly causes havoc in Colombia, they do represent a minority group and therefore allowing negotiations with them and potentially giving them a seat at the table could be considered a move towards democracy. On the contrary, democracy at its base value should insist on the members of government being popularly elected by Colombians, so if the government simply gives the FARC group seats in the legislature and a lesser sentence for their crimes, democracy is being perverted in order to achieve peace. I am not commenting on whether the peace deals are good or bad, simply that democracy is not being truly achieved by the process.

The power structure will also be affected if FARC members are given a seat in Colombia’s legislature. Not only will they represent a very different point of view, but also by sharing the power, current members are diluting their own power. It would also be easy to imagine that the process of writing new laws would be slowed heavily, because if FARC members have an equal say in the legislature, they will undoubtedly push for unpopular policies or ones that are self-serving. This delegation of power to FARC members could also be seen as a form of creating a “semi-democracy” within Colombia. Traditionally, a semi-democracy refers to how the head of state is run, however because elected members of the legislature would have to share their power with unelected members of FARC who are present solely for the convenience of avoiding another war, elected members are forced to share their power and a semi-democratic legislature is created (Smith).