of democracy level (idl): discovering factors that influence democracy in armenia

41 Pages·2014·0.88 MB·English

Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) – Armenia

This research has been implemented in the scope of CRRC-Armenia Research
Fellowship Program, financed by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
________________________________________________
Grants to Support Social Science and
Policy- Oriented Research # R03

I D L (IDL):
NDEX OF EMOCRACY EVEL DISCOVERING
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DEMOCRACY IN
A
RMENIA

By

Arusyak Aleksanyan

Yerevan – 2013

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ 3

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3

2. DEMOCRACY: DEFENITIONS, FACTORS AND THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS ...... 5

3. DEMOCRACY INDICIES ..................................................................................................... 8

4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 16

5. INDICES AND TREND OF ARMENIAN DEMOCRATIZATION ...................................... 26

6. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DEMOCRACY IN ARMENIA: ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 29

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 35

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 38

2
ABSTRACT
Recent democratic developments worldwide have necessitated application of tools in
order to evaluate compare and explain democratization processes across countries and over
the time. Modeling is one of the most effective methods applied in the analysis of political
and socio-economic processes and aimed at solution of complex issues arising in the field.
Current study introduces a new model for the assessment of democracy (Index of Democracy
Level-IDL) based on the method of index construction. This approach allows to analyze the
levels of democracy in a given country within its various periods of development and to
compare different countries by their level of democracy via application of an integrated
numerical factor of democracy (index). The paper focuses on the evolution of Armenian
democracy in the time span between 1998 and 2012 – a period of its modeling and
estimation. The key factors influencing democracy in Armenia are determined through
simple regression analysis with the aim to tackle preconditions for the development of
democracy in the country.

1.INTRODUCTION
What are the preconditions for democracy? And which particular factors are highly
correlated with democracy?
Since 1980 there has been an increased academic interest in the factors that promote
democracy and means for measuring democracy. Such heightened interest owes it to the new
tendencies in democratization of states which have instigated researchers to reconsider their
methodological and theoretical approaches. Nowadays there is a greater demand for measuring
democracy even beyond academic circles. It determines international image of the country and
affects the scope of foreign investments.
There are many different indices of democracy developed by various schools of thought,
however most of them suggest biased approach to democratic systems. Therefore in the proposed
3
model I will consider several aspects of democracy based on their influencing factors and
conditions for democracy. The comparative studies of conditions for democracy are based on
general theoretical hypotheses that determine democracy by economic development, social,
educational, cultural, religion, international and other factors and spheres.
Lipset (1959, 1969, 154) examined the preconditions for democracy from the standpoint
of correlativity but not causality. Socio-economic factors (welfare, urbanization,
industrialization, education e.t.c.) emphasized by Lipset, were perceived as preconditions for
promoting democracy rather than requiring its foundation. Therefore if trying to summarize
theoretical approaches and empirical research outcomes it may be concluded that democracy is a
socio-political system of relations based on the development of society and its economic, social,
cultural and other conditions. Following this definition of democracy the selection of indicators
was not merely limited to one leading factor but it also included a set of conditions for the
promotion and development of democracy. It is my belief that all considered conditions are
certainly important for the development of democracy, however they vary in the degree of
importance in each country case. While modeling and researching democracy in the observed
country, the regression analysis will be applied to discover its most fundamental factors.
The proposed model allows to:
• acquire four subindices (political, economic, social, education and health) in order to
assess and compare the state progress in each field,
• implement in-country analysis, while assessing the dynamics of democratization in a
country during any period of time,
• conduct a cross-country analysis, compare and classify countries by the level of
democracy according to the scale from 0 to 1,
4
• reveal the most influential factors of democratization of a country.

2. DEMOCRACY: DEFENITIONS, FACTORS AND THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS
The term “democracy” stems from the ancient Greek word δημοκρατία (dēmokratiā),
which combines two words: dēmos that is, “people”, and kratos, meaning “rule”, “power” or
“strength”. In the 5th century BCE it denoted the political systems that functioned in Greek city-
states. Put together, the literal denotation of the Greek word democracy is “rule by the people”,
and it culminates in a popular form of government.
There is a bulk of academic literature expounding a plurality of theories and definitions
of democracy. When exploring and measuring democracy the scholars have emphasized different
conditions, factors and developments affecting democracy. Modernizationalists, like Seymour
Lipset, argue that the economic growth and well-being lead to democracy. In his article Seymour
Lipset (1959, 80) claims that “…the factors of industrialization, urbanization, wealth, and
education, are so closely interrelated as to form one common factor. And the factors subsumed
under economic development carry with it the political correlate of democracy”. Robert Dahl
(1985) also highlights the interdependence between economic prosperity and democracy.
According to him democracy does not requirethe abundance or standards of material well-being
prevailing in most modern industrialized countries. Instead, the democracy abides sense of
relative economic prosperity, justice and chance for success.According to Barro (1999, 160)
“...increases in various measures of the standard of living forecast a gradual rise in democracy. In
contrast, democracies that arise without prior economic development — sometimes because they
are imposed by former colonial powers or international organizations — tend not to last.” The
hypothesis that economic growth and well-being lead to democracy reverberates in all major
5
works on democracy. Lipset (1959, 75) notes that “only in a wealthy society in which relatively
few citizens lived in real poverty could a situation exist in which the mass of the population
could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid
succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues.” Samuel Huntington (1968) predicts
that the outcomes of economic development can lead to political decay; thereafter, provoked by
instability, political systems would normally move toward democracy through
institutionalization. On one hand, scholars like Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton
Halperin (Siegle et al, 2004) argue that democracies consistently outpace non-democracies on
most indicators of economic and social well-being. Therefore, it is recommended to promote
democracy prior to focusing on economic and social developments in third world countries. On
the other hand, theorists like Cassinelli (1961) claim that a modern democratic state can exist
only in a society in which the problems of material well being are solved. Finally, as Wejnert
(2005) suggests, when considering democracy the diffusion factors are more important than the
social-economic.
Actually, with the beginning of the third wave of democratization, the research studies
have focused more on other significant aspects of democracy. For example, Huntington (1991),
when examining the obstacles and opportunities for further democratization, divides them into
three broad categories: political, cultural and economic. Among these three, the cultural aspect
calls for two claims: 1) only the western culture provides the appropriate base for the
development of democratic institutions and, therefore democracy is not suitable for non-Western
societies; 2) some cultures are intrinsically incompatible with democracy, for instance, those
promoting Confucianism and Islam.
6
Other scholars (Moon, et al 2006, 4) use statistical evidence on democratic persistence,
basic needs fulfillment, and gender equality, to demonstrate that “no measure of democracy can
be considered an accurate representation of its basic character without directly including
participation as a core component.'' Moreover, TatuVanhanen (1984, 1989, 1997) suggests to
consider the issue at two levels: competition level and participation level.
Michael J. Sodaro (2004, 207-220) proposes ten conditions for democracy: 1)state
institutions, 2)elites committed to democracy, 3) homogeneous society, 4)national wealth,
5)private enterprise, 6)middle class, 7) support of the disadvantaged for democracy, 8)citizen
participation, civil society, and democratic political culture, 9) education and freedom of
information, 10) favorable international environment.
O’Donnell (2004), Warren (2006) and Rose (2009) claim that the state failure to enforce
the rule of law and control over corruption are the major determinants of effective or ineffective
democracies. Marc Bühlmann (Bühlmann et al., 2008, 15) defines freedom, equality and control
as three core principles of democracy.
Summarizing main study findings on democracy, Rustow (1970, 337-338) notes that
democratization could be explained by three core analytical accounts. The first approach
proposed by Seymour Lipset, Philips Cutright, and others, ''connects stable democracy with
certain economic and social background conditions, such as high per capita income, widespread
literacy, and prevalent urban residence.'' The second account concentrates on “the need for
certain beliefs or psychological attitudes among citizens.” Political culture specialists Daniel
Lerner, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, claim that civil culture and willingness to participate
in public affairs are imperative for establishing democracy. Finally, the third approach put
7
forward by ArendLijphart, Ralf Dahrendorf, Robert Dahl, Harry Eckstein and others, looks into
the characteristic features of social and political structure.
In contrast, American political scientists Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe
C. Schmitter (1991) take a different standpoint when analyzing the transition from authoritarian
regimes to democracy in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe. They hypothesize that
perhaps there is no precondition or a set of preconditions required for the emergence of
democracy. So far the attempts to derive the causes of democratic transition from economic,
social, cultural, psychological and international factors haven’t been successful in generating a
universal law of democratization. Based on this hypothesis, the researchers recommendto refrain
from defining any general and identical conditions that would explain the presence or absence of
democratic regimes. Those criteria previously considered as preconditions for democracy, can be
equally interpreted as the consequences of formation of different types of democracy. Such
criteria as economic growth, equitable distribution of income, the growth of literacy and
education, the development of communications and the media can be regarded as derivatives of
stable democratic processes, but not necessary conditions for their existence.

3. DEMOCRACY INDICIES
At present there are more than a dozen of different indices covering various aspects of
democracy. The history of measuring democracy emerges in the 1960s and progresses due to
pursuit after improved measuring techniques and quest for new adjusted scales. Within these
frames, some scholars suggest indices that stress the formal or institutional feature of democracy
(e.g. Cutright’s political development index), others (Bollen, Dahl, Vanhanen, Neubauer)
emphasize the procedural aspect of democracy and the third ones develop indices (Civil Liberties
8
and Political Rights of Freedom House) that would allow to measure the level of implementation
of declared rights.
Cutright’s Index of Political Development
Cutright's (1963) index of political development is based on measures of structural
complexity, composition of legislative bodies and form of political leadership. According to
Cutright, politically developed nations have more complex national political structures than less
developed ones. He estimated the principles that affected the formation of legislative and
executive bodies in 77 countries for the time span between 1940 and 1960. Each country could
acquire 0 to 3 points per year (maximum 2 points for the legislative state authority and maximum
1 point for the executive state authority). Accordingly, the index varied between 0 and 63. By
means of index Cutright (ibid) argued that political institutional development was not correlated
with the level of education, urbanization, economic growth, communication systems e.t.c.
however, he contended that communication systems were highly correlated with political
development. The weakness of Cutright’s index comes from an invalid assumption that the
presence of democratic institutions is sufficient to describe the level of democracy in a country.
Moreover Cutright’s index may prove ineffective when comparing highly developed
democracies
Bollen’s Political Democracy Index
Kenneth Bollen (1980, 372) defines democracy as “the extent to which the political
power of the elite is minimized and that of the nonelite is maximized.”
Bollen (1980, 372) emphasizes two features of political democracy as variables of his
analysis- political liberties and popular sovereignty (expressed in the electoral process).
Bollen’s indicators of political liberties are:
9
1.Press freedom (ten-point scale),
2.Freedom of group opposition (four-point scale),
3.Government sanctions (the number of cases).
Bollen’s indicators of popular sovereignty are:
1.Fairness of elections,
2.Executive selection i.e., whether chief executive is elected,
3.Legislative selection – i.e., whether the legislature is elected and effective.
Each indicator is linearly transformed to the arbitrary scale of 0 to 100 and the overall
index is the simple average of those scaled scores.
Vanhanen’s Index of Democracy1
The Vanhanen’s Index of Democracy (see Vanhanen 1997; 2000; 2003) was designed
and developed by TatuVanhanen, professor emeritus at the University of Tampere and the
University of Helsinki. According to Vanhanen the two theoretical dimensions of
democratization examined by Robert A. Dahl (1971) - public contestation and the right to
participate- seem to correspond to those characteristics of political systems that best discriminate
more democratic systems from less democratic ones. He calls these dimensions "competition"
(C) and "participation" (P).
Competition is the proportion of the votes won by smaller parties in parliamentary and/or
presidential elections, to indicate the degree of competition in a given political system. This
figure is calculated by subtracting from the total (100 percent) percentage of votes won by the
largest political party.
Participation is the percentage of the population that has actually voted in the elections. It
should be noted that this percentage is calculated from the total population, not from the adult or

1http://www.prio.no/CSCW/Datasets/Governance/Vanhanens-index-of-democracy
10