Thomas Carothers on Democracy

Gulnara Alimbayeva, SPP, MPA 2015 reports

SPP Distinguished Visiting Professor Thomas Carothers drew on his many years of personal experience to help his audience think abstractly about democracy. He started with defining democracy and then spoke about the indicators of democracy. It did not take long before he had everyone involved in the discussion.

Guided by the professor, the participants identified the key components in the democratisation process: processes, institutions, and cultures. Carothers emphasized that no matter what terms one uses to describe democracy (sovereign, managed, orchestrated, deliberate), they should not contradict the main notion of democracy, but instead “provide a deeper sense” of the word.

Carothers also led participants through the “foggy zones” [1] of the democratisation path where countries in transition can get stuck. When this happens, they fall into a civil conflict (Liberia), descend into feckless pluralism (Romania), are ruled by a dominant power (Russia, Kazakhstan), or remain under an authoritarian regime (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Belarus) [2]. The delegates used this framework to categorize other countries in one of the “foggy zones.”

Although democracy encompasses many variables and dependencies, there are still many attempts to measure it. There are democracy indices, for example, from places like Polity IV, Freedom House, Transparency International, NDI, and IDEA. Indexes are irresistible, but they are also imperfect due to the nature of democracy. For instance, the index of freedom (Freedom House) assigns Turkey and Mexico the same score of 3.5, which is defined as “partly free,” but the countries’ political structures, judicial systems, and media freedom vary considerably. Carothers said that although he too uses some of these indexes, none of them reflect and grasp all of the pieces of the democratic puzzle.

The discussion was dynamic and engaging, and opinions kept changing as the conversation progressed. Although Carothers took the lead, he was not always the one at the white board. At one point, Denis Alexeev (Associate Professor of International Relations at Saratov State University) took charge demonstrating his approach with security and democratisation variables.

The session provided good food for thought and served as an inspiration for further investigation of the issue.

[1] Andreas Schedler, Elections Without Democracy: The Menu of Manipulation, CIDE, Mexico City, 2002.

[2] Thomas Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy, January 2002.