Comparative Analysis of Democratization prof Fulvio Venturino Comparative

Comparative Analysis of Democratization prof. Fulvio Venturino Comparative Politics Principles of Democracy and Democratization Chapter 5: Social Structure and Politics

A starting point: social pluralism • Social pluralism defined: existence of a large number of relatively autonomous associational groups independent from the state • Such groups promote the development of cross-cutting social cleavages that build ties between social, ethnic, or religious groups • Such groups also provide the basis for the limitation of state power, promoting the control of the state by society

The key questions 1. The relationship between the legacy of feudalism and democracy 2. The relationship between inequality and democracy 3. The relationship between civil society and democracy

Feudalism and democracy • Alternative points of view coexist – feudalism can be seen as an early form of pluralism that led to the limitation of the development of centralized state power – Alexis De Tocqueville pointed to the absence of feudalism in the United States as contributing to democracy – Barrington Moore states that what kind of feudal system existed strongly matters for democratization

Socioeconomic inequality and democracy • Extreme inequalities in wealth undermine democratic political structures because – the concentration of economic resources in the hands of the “haves” make the haves unwilling to accept political reforms, as they believe that the “have nots” will deprive them of their wealth – moreover, inequalities produce high levels of resentments and radicalization among the “have nots”

Civil society defined • Society at large: focused on private gain, as in the case of families, inward-looking groups or profit-oriented firms • Civil society: focused on public goods • Political society: groups directly tied to the state, such as Congress, the bureaucracy, and political parties

Civil society as interest groups • Anomic groups: spontaneous groups with a collective response to a particular frustration • Non associational groups: individuals are usually held together by some common kinship or identity ties, such as race or gender • Institutional groups: are mostly formal and have some other political or social function in addition to the particular interest • Associational groups: formed explicitly to represent a particular set of issues and interests, such as trade unions, organizations that advocate gun or animal rights, professional organizations

Civil society and benefits for democracy • associating with other individuals in a voluntary association gives a person increased political resources • participation in voluntary organizations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry • civil society groups also promote attitudes such as tolerance, moderation, and willingness to compromise

Robert Putnam The decline of social capital • Social capital (according to Encyclopedia Britannica): potential of individuals to secure benefits and invent solutions to problems through membership in social networks • Disengagement depends on – – Movement of women into the labor force Greater geographical mobility Demographic changes The technological transformation and privatization of leisure

The critique of civil societydemocracy nexus • Small well-organized interest groups dominate the political process leaving many voices unheard • There is no necessary connection between civic engagement and political engagement, only the latter being crucial for the development of democracy • Another criticism involves the measurement of social capital, social networks, and civil society • The causal links between civil society and democracy are controversial