Linz, Juan (1978) Crisis, Breakdown and Re -equilibration
Reading list MT09 Week 4: Chp 3-4 pp50-86.
Chapter 3 - The Process of Breakdown.
How does a democratic regime break down? Disloyal versus loyal actors. The former want to end the regime, the latter to preserve it. As long as the electoral strength or the parliamentary representation of the disloyal parties does not constitute an absolute majority, a democratic regime can survive.
As long as it has legitimacy, the democratic regime can count on the passive obedience of most citizens and successfully repress violent challenges.
When the government is unable to solve a problem for which the disloyal opposition offers itself as a solution, the regime is in danger. If parties loyal to the regime can not compromise on a particular issue/set of issues, one/some of them may be tempted to align with disloyal opposition to promote that issue.
This can weaken the legitimacy of the regime by destroying trust in the system (the very act of a loyal party joining with a disloyal party), and may result in societal polarisation, which is also damaging for democracy.
If it is not possible to solve a pressing problem within the system, people have to decide what is more important, the problem or the system.
Concept of a polarised, centrifugal, multiparty system that is both a cause an a consequence of unsolvable problems.
What type of problems are unsolvable?
- Structural problems (international influences, resource imbalances): rarely the cause of a breakdown but if they become acute can become destabilising - e.g. an economic crisis
- Some problems are unsolvable if maintaining democratic freedoms
- Mistakes made by elites turning solvable problems into insuperable ones
- International problem involving domestic concession (e.g. climate change?)
Losing the support of the military/military leadership
Creates a military challenge to civil authority
Loss of the monopoly on organised political force
Government loses legitimacy when it allows groups with paramilitary discipline to emerge for political reasons. Tolerance of disloyal paramilitaries helped the disintegration of democratic rule in Italy, Germany, Austria and to some extent Spain (footnote 18)
Can not be sure of using the military to quell dissent
One sidedness in dealing with violent acts can lead to a loss of legitimacy, polarisation (government needs to be able to distance itself)
It needs mass but moderate response to uprisings - democracies MAY need larger security forces than dictatorships as they rely on numbers not strength
Following incompatible goals leads to an incapacity to reconcile conflicting objectives
Particularly in a crisis, governments depend on party organisations as well as the electorate for support.
If it is the mid-level cadres (usually most ideological) who are most important, this creates difficulties (they might prefer ideology to democracy)
Complex problems + fragmented leadership further weakens the system.
Define revolution:
A sovereign is the one who can decide in the state of emergency
If the transfer of loyalties to another sovereign takes place, revolution occured (Tilly)
Regimes with a long history of stability are more likely to survive than those without, as it generates loyalty/legitimacy among the members/civilians. (using Hirschman's theory of loyalty).
Crisis strata - to what extent can people be mobilised for or against the regime?
Affects how durable the regime it.
Theory - Crisis stricken groups who have leadership qualities, free time, discipline, skills in violence
Difference in Spain compared to Germany
Role of violence: usually doesn't directly lead to breakdown but contributes to the loss of legitimacy, loss of power then power vacuum
Elites failing to deal properly with violence can lead to regime breakdown. E.g. excessive lenience towards violent acts on one side
Summary of the model
THE REGIME AN UNSOLVABLE Loss of legitimacy Challenge to
[Structural factors] > PROBLEM > Disloyalty > regime
Democratic crisis and multinational states
Loyalty of citizens to the state should be greater than loyalty to another state in the making
Disloyal minority may become a majority by persuading people to take their view, or slowly change the social structure to become a majority
Consociationalism may reduce nationalist/seccessionist minority strains but preconditions for its success not always present and not easily achieved.
Theory - territory should be linked to culture and language otherwise risk of polarisation
Making a group a permanent minority through boundary setting can reduce legitimacy
If a minority is committed to maintaining its distinctive cultural heritage and cannot do so within the political system it could lead to secessionists aims.
Democracies are unstable in multinational states (footnote 27). Not many stable democracies in multinational states. Cause of breakdown?
Government instability / Political system causes
- Growing difficulty in forming coalitions
- Factionalisation and fragmentation of parties (see other lit on importance of parties)
- Shifts in electorates towards the extremes (other evidence - usually it's not the electorate that shifted to the extreme but the elites who mistakenly thought they did)
Coopting disloyal oppositions as the government is unwilling or unable to repress them
Does the electoral system promote competition or cooperation?
Abdication of democratic authenticity.
- e.g. turning political issues into supposedly technical issues to be dealt with by unelected officials or the judiciary
Presidentialism versus parlimentarianism
