Research Conferences: The Inaugural Cline Conference - Democracy in the Twenty-first Century: Prospects and Problems

To celebrate the centennial of the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and to inaugurate the Cline Center for Democracy, the inaugural Cline conference was convened between October 24 and October 27, 2004.  In preparation for this conference a set of original essays were commissioned that focused on the challenges, and opportunities, facing democracy in the 21st century. 

The impetus for this focus was to reexamine the triumphalism that had swept observers of the global political scene at the close of the 20th century.  As a form of government, democracy enjoyed unparalleled prestige.  The most prosperous nations in the world were democracies.  Moreover, democracy’s “third wave” had generated an unprecedented number of new republics in Southern and Eastern Europe as well as Latin America.  Reflecting on the latter part of the 20th century, some saw the “end of history,” arguing that democracy had vanquished its competitors, and that it was the only legitimate form of government. 

Others were more cautious.  Mindful of both the potential of democracy in the new century and its ebb and flow throughout history, they envision a more problematic future for democratic governance.  Several challenges stood out.  For some the potential ramifications of technological and demographic developments rooted in the 20th century, as well as the globalization of many forms of human activity, clouded the prospects for democracy in the 21st century.  Of most relevance here were the increasing racial, ethnic and religious diversity of contemporary states, the rapid diffusion of innovations in information and communication technologies, and the emergence of global forces and institutions. 

While these developments present new possibilities for democratic governance, they also have the potential to disrupt the formulation and implementation of collective actions.  Moreover, in conjunction with the demise of the Cold War global order in the 1990’s, these developments give rise to barriers that could affect the diffusion of democracy beyond its current reaches.   In the 21st century the joint effects of these developments could:

• Affect the ability of individuals to discharge the responsibilities of democratic citizenship;
• Affect the structure, operation and legitimacy of institutional mechanisms for linking elite behavior to mass preferences;
• Place extraordinary burdens on political and civic leaders, at the local, national and international level;
• Limit the legitimacy of traditional conceptions of democratic institutions in non-western settings;
• Constrain and curtail the actions of democratically elected governments in historically unprecedented ways.

Given the potential significance of these effects, the objective of the conference was to initiate a dialogue that addresses the implications of these developments in a creative, thought provoking manner.  The conference drew distinguished students of democracy from across the U.S. and was organized into four sections.  The first dealt with issues facing democratic publics, the second addressed potential changes in mass-elite linkages, and the third was concerned with challenges and barriers to democratization.  The final section addressed international actors and global forces and how they may affect democratic governance in the 21st century.

The papers presented are summarized below, along with the presenters and a summary of the presentation.  Revised versions of the papers appear in a two volume collection that is the first in the Center’s book series, Democracy, Free Enterprise and the Rule of Law.

Democracy in the Twenty-first Century: Prospects and Problems

Democratic Publics in the 21st Century

Civic Engagement and the Vitality of Democratic Governance:
The Demands of Democratic Citizenship and 21st Century Societies

(Wendy Rahn, University of Minnesota)

Participation in politics, in different ways and at a variety of levels, is the sine qua non of democracy.  But in modern, global societies the transaction costs of life are high, and the competition for citizens’ time and energies is great.  These conditions reduce the amount of scarce resources citizens can devote to political matters. Moreover, in many nations, their impact on political participation is likely to increase in the future. 

What does this mean for the future of democratic political orders?  Are there countervailing forces that will reverse current trends?  Are there structural or technological adjustments that can be used to mitigate the impact of factors that erode civic engagement?  If not, what are the implications for democracy? What can be done to address these challenges?

Issues, Information Flows and Cognitive Capacities:
Democratic Citizenship in a Global Era

(James H. Kuklinski, University of Illinois)

Globalization and the revolution in information technology have complicated democratic governance considerably.  Globalization has introduced a novel set of challenging political issues, and obfuscates political accountability for important aspects of societal welfare.  Advances in information technology, on the other hand, overwhelm citizens with sources and levels of political information.

What do these developments mean for the future role of citizens in democratic political orders?  Do they pose cognitive problems that cannot be handled by ordinary citizens?  Are there institutional alternatives that can be created to help address these problems?  Are these challenges any more insurmountable than those posed by other major societal transformations, such as urbanism or the Industrial Revolution? 
 
Citizens, Identities and Democratic Dialogues:
 Opportunities and Challenges of Diverse Societies

(Mark Sawyer, UCLA)

This paper will seek to examine the relationship between racial diversity, identity politics and democracy. The paper will address a growing literature by writers like Arthur Schlesinger, Paul Sniderman, Carol Swain, and Samuel Huntington that argue diversity and identity politics by minorities pose a problem for democracy. The paper will use insights from the concept of Contentious Pluralism to argue that in fact minority political movements have more often than not expanded democracy in creative ways through contention. Thus, the problem for democracy is the already existing exclusions of racialized subjects from democratic projects.

These interventions thus are not problems for democracy but creative attempts to rectify problems in democratic structures. The paper will explore several cases to make this point. One case will be the indigenous movements in Chiapas Mexico and the fall of the PRI. Second, will be the Black movement in Brazil and that country's transition from military rule. Further, the paper will examine the activities of Blacks in the struggle for Cuban independence, the Justice for Janitors movement in Los Angeles, and the victory of Harold Washington in Chicago. The paper will argue that minority identity politics and contentiousness frequently provide a creative spark for broader democratic reform.

Mass-elite Linkages in the 21st Century

Communication Technologies, Public Opinion and Democratic Governance:
Mass-Elite Linkages in the Information Age, I

Communication Technologies, Public Opinion and Democratic Governance

(Lance Bennett, University of Washington)

At the dawn of the Twentieth Century the emerging consensus among elites was that publics were inherently so explosive and potentially threatening to the interests of business and global expansion that governance required the new art of public relations to engineer consent. Looking back at century’s end, the evolved technologies for engineering consent have come to mediate most relations between elites and publics. This management of public discourse is now predicated upon a press that primarily reports the pronouncements of officialdom, while savaging those who fail to spin them well. The question for the dawning of the present century might be: What has the institutionalization of such highly managed public communication wrought for democracy?

Have advances in the technologies of strategic communication actually resulted in an unprecedented manipulation of public opinion today? Manipulation may not be the right word to describe targeted audiences who are so bombarded with competing messages that they end up confused, discouraged, and not infrequently, misinformed. Rather than engineering broad consent, the technologies of strategic communication today may contribute more to the epidemic of cynicism and disaffection in relations between publics and leaders. Yet those leaders remain in the sway of communication consultants whose practices are deemed indispensable for governing. Even when messages from these strategic communicators reach their audiences, the decline of civil society organization has so disrupted the classic two-step flow of information from leaders to citizens that social interpretation is now left more to chattering media pundits and late night comedians than to trusted social group authorities.

The challenge for democratic discourse at the dawn of the Twenty-first Century is to develop communication technologies and forums that ameliorate the fragmentation and exclusion of large segments of the public, while promoting information exchange at levels deeper than the sound bite. One promising development may be the rise of digital technologies that enable large numbers of individuals to organize and communicate directly, and that hold the promise for broad deliberative forums between elites and publics.     

New Media, Fragmented Audiences and Political Community:
Mass-Elite Linkages in the Information Age

(Bruce Bimber, University of California at Santa Barbara)

In the 21st century the proliferation of cable television channels and Internet technologies, in conjunction with increasingly diverse populations, suggests the possibility of highly fragmented political communities and structures, compared with certain earlier periods in American democracy when local political communities, media systems, or elite political structures tended toward greater political integration and synthesis.

What does political fragmentation in the contemporary period entail, and on what levels of the political system does it occur? How realistic are these concerns? Are there countervailing pressures that may offset the fragmentation effects of these technological advances? What are the connections between changes associated with new media and earlier periods of political disequilibrium? What are the likely implications of these new media for the role of political organizations in 21st century democracies?  

Technological Advances and Individual Liberties:
The Reach of the State in the 21st Century

(Wayne McIntosh, University of Maryland, College Park)

Advances in biotechnology, electronics and information technology provide the state with unprecedented capacities to invade the personal space of individuals in ways never imagined by democratic theorists.  The state’s new reach poses a serious threat to democratic governance because it provides rulers with important resources in dealing with political opponents and dissidents.

What are the most mischievous advances, or potential advances, from the perspective of democratic governance?  Why do these various advances pose threats to democracy?  How realistic are these threats?  How can the politically undesirable effects of technological advances be countered? 

Electoral Engineering, Societal Cleavages and Representation

(Bernard Grofman, University of California at Irvine)

Increasingly diverse political communities pose important challenges for the representation of interests in democracies.  Electoral systems rooted in the 19th and 20th centuries may have to be re-examined in light of 21st century realities.

What alternatives should institutional designers consider?  In deciding among alternatives, what values should be maximized?  What trade-offs are involved in selecting different electoral institutions?

Diversity, Leadership and Effective Democratic Governance:
Problems, Challenges and Alternatives

(Paul Sniderman, Stanford University)

The possibility that many political communities will be demographically more diverse in the 21st century will place enormous pressures on democratic forms of government.  To deal with these pressures effectively, enlightened political leadership will be essential.

What roles can leaders of societal groups (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) play in ameliorating the impact of cultural problems while still representing the interests of those they represent?  What will happen if political leaders fail to play responsible roles in insuring that democracy functions effectively? How can they be induced to play those roles? 

Economic Inequalities, Economic Levels and Democratic Politics:
Market Economies and Democratic Governance in the 21st Century

(Melissa Orlie, University of Illinois)

Democracy’s third wave was accompanied in many countries by market economies.  Market economies have, on balance, had the effect of raising the standard of living in a society, which has helped to consolidate fledgling democracies.  At the same time, market economies often have the effect of exacerbating economic inequalities, especially when global economic pressures drive them.  Since economic inequalities arguably undermine democratic processes, free markets theoretically have mixed effects on the vitality of democratic processes. 

Since neither market economies nor global economic pressures are likely to recede in the near future, these mixed effects pose a dilemma for the next century.  How real is this dilemma?  Are there ways to maintain, and capitalize on the benefits of, economic growth without diminishing the accountability of democratic governments? If not what are the alternatives?

Democratization on the Frontiers of the Third Wave

Global Democratization in the 21st Century: Opportunities and Challenges

(Larry Diamond, the Hoover Institution)

The global spread of democracy was the decisive development of the final quarter of the twentieth century.  Today, about three-fifths of all states are democracies.  Democracy is present to some significant degree within every religious tradition and every level of economic development (even a third of the very poorest countries are democracies). No other form of government has any broad legitimacy in the world, and the norms and expectations of democracy, along with practical measures to develop and defend democracy, are becoming increasingly embedded in international norms and institutions.  Increasingly, it is possible to envision a world (some few decades hence) in which virtually every country will be a democracy.

However, the continued expansion of democracy in the world confronts very serious obstacles and challenges.  First, there is not a single Arab democracy, and until political and geopolitical dynamics within the Arab region are transformed, this region will remain resistant to democratic change.  Second, while there have been very few democratic breakdowns during the third wave, two lasting reversals of democracy have come in strategically important swing states (Russia and Pakistan), while other developing-country democracies either are functioning very poorly (Indonesia, the Andean region), or occupy an ambiguous zone between democracy and electoral authoritarian rule (Nigeria, Ukraine).  Unless civilian, constitutional regimes govern more transparently and accountably, and respond more effectively to citizen needs, the global democratic trend could be endangered. The paper proceeds to identify a number of international policies and institutions that could generate incentives and provide support for sustained democratic progress in the coming decades.

Societal Cleavages and Democratization

(Jack Snyder, Columbia University)

Many of the nations unaffected by democracy’s various waves are characterized by deep social cleavages rooted in tribal, ethnic, racial or religious differences.  But not all democratic nations are demographically homogenous and these nations have demonstrated that democracy can be effective even in culturally diverse societies.

What distinguishes authoritarian states with heterogeneous populations from democratic states with heterogeneous populations (history, location, social structures)?  What special challenges do the existence of diverse populations pose for the emergence and consolidation of democracy?  How can these challenges be addressed?

Democracies and the Problem of Statehood

(Zachary Elkins, University of Illinois)

Many new democracies face a serious problem of "statehood."  While
authoritarian governments from Spain's Franco to Yugoslavia's Tito to
Iraq's Saddam Hussain manufactured allegiance to the state with fear and
force, their democratic successors have not been nearly as successful in
building such attachment.  As democracy scholars have come to recognize,
broad support for the state is essential to the performance and survival
of democracy (Dahl 1973; Horowitz 1985; Lijphart 1999; Linz and Stepan
1997; Linz, Stepan, and Yadav 2003; Stepan 2001: 181-200). Pockets of
disenchantment and disloyalty lead to distortions in participation and
representation, at best, and discrimination and violence at worst. 

How can multiethnic states deepen democracy while avoiding such ethnic
disintegration?  Scholars suggest several institutional fixes, among them,
federalism and proportional electoral systems (Riker 1964; Lijphart 19XX).
Others, however, argue that these same institutions are ineffectual and
might even exacerbate state disintegration (Brubaker 1996; Meadwell 1993:
200; Nordlinger 1972: 32; Roeder 1991; Laitin 1998?).  Theoretically, this
disagreement turns on whether creating autonomous domains of power
strengthens or weakens state loyalty.  We evaluate this proposition,
review the available evidence, and suggest fruitful avenues for further
research.

Exporting Western Institutions: Barriers to Adoption of Democracy

(Lisa Anderson, Columbia University)

A response heard in many “holdout” nations in the midst of democracy’s third wave is that democracy is inconsistent with a nation’s traditions and social structures.  Local elites point to some mix of differences in values and beliefs, political institutions, or social structures and norms to argue that democracy could not be imported into their land.

What is the basis for these assertions?  Which are the most incompatible aspects of democracy?  How valid are these culturally based arguments? How great of an impediment are these cultural barriers to the diffusion of democratic forms of government?  Can they be overcome? How?

International Actors, Globalization and Democratic Governance

A Fourth Wave? The Role of International Actors
on Democratization in the 21stCentury

(Bruce Russett, Yale)

If, as many believe, democracy’s third wave has ebbed, perhaps the most important item on the agenda of democracy advocates is the ignition of a new wave of democratization.  If such a movement emerges, it is likely to be driven by a different set of forces than the third wave.  One of the big changes in the global landscape since 1974 is the emergence of a variety of powerful international actors who could play a major role in the diffusion of democracy beyond its existing frontiers.

How realistic is the hope that international actors can play a major role in fostering democratization and its consolidation?  What actors are likely to be the most influential in this regard?  What levers at their disposal are likely to be the most effective?  What are the most important impediments to the role of international actors as agents of political change?  How can these impediments be overcome?

Private Global Actors, Macroeconomic Outcomes and
Democratic Accountability

(John Freeman, University of Minnesota)

Accompanying the latest wave of democratization has been the emergence of a variety of powerful, non-governmental global actors (Paris Club, currency traders, bond traders, large investors, etc.).  These private, global actors have tremendous power to move resources across borders, thereby affecting macroeconomic outcomes in non-trivial ways.  Moreover, while the power and reach of these global actors constrain the actions of national governments, they are difficult to regulate and they are publicly unaccountable.

What challenges does this situation pose for democratic governance?  Are these challenges historically unique?  Can the challenges posed by these private, global actors be addressed effectively by democratic nation-states? If so, how?  If not, what does this suggest for democratic control over such key aspect of societal welfare?

Globalization, Sovereignty and the Limits to Democratic Control

(Beth Simmons, Harvard University)

International organizations such as the World Trade Organization and European Union are increasingly deciding policy in areas that used to be decided by national governments (product safety standards, taxation rules, anti-trust law).  While members of these organizations are democracies, neither the international organizations nor their procedures are democratic.  The delegation of policy matters that affect the welfare of citizens to these international actors obfuscates political accountability and undermines traditional mechanisms of democratic control.

How unique are the challenges posed by the emerging role of international organizations?  What are the implications of these trends for democratic governance?  How can these implications be addressed?  What are the alternatives to delegating authority to international organizations in a global era?