Democratic Consolidation
O’Donnell and Schmitter describe that a transition is over when “abnormality” is no longer a central role in the political arena. Normality that the describe is where actors obey a set group of rules to govern. However, as they continued in the article they describe transitions and democratic consolidation to a multilayered chess games there are some who will not follow the set rules and flip the chess board over. I disagree with the idea that a transition is over when the abnormality is gone, based on that in countries that have been democratic for hundreds of years still have actors who try to change or flip over the chess board, though I concede that the abnormality in say the US to the abnormality in Venezuela are greatly different and the threats are far weaker in a to set secured democracy but to say that a transition is over when actors agree on set rules is too broad of a statement.
O’Donnell and Schmitter discuss that expedient solutions have a lasting impact on the future of the government, this is carried on in O’Donnell’s second article delegative democracies where a quick resolution like O’Donnell and Schmitter were writing about can cause a democracy to stall and become a delegative democracy where it is not in danger of a regime change however it is not progressing towards the desired goal of a representative democracy. Institutions are a central element in O’Donnell’s article and rightfully so, while listing off characteristics of a functioning institutional settings he lays out the reasoning for political institutions and their significance. I agree with O’Donnell on countries needs for institutions in order to become a successful democracy and progressing from a delegative democracy, however the slow movement towards representative democracy may be compromised due to the impatience of the people and some in the government.
Based on your comments about the importance of institutions it sounds like you may fall in the Constructivist camp of international theories. If you disagree with the given definition of the end of a transition then what do you think would be a more appropriate definition? Personally I think that O’Donnell and Schmitter’s broadness is what makes it an effective theory.
I’m interested in the point you made against the idea of abnormality being an indicator of a stable democracy. It is important to note that there are considerable differences to consider in this logic when looking at Latina America’s stability as opposed to say the US, so its interesting to think about what these differences might be and how we can measure the stability of a democracy. It true that the quick fixes that they discussed have serious potential issues. What are your thoughts on how we might move forward in evaluating stability?