POLYARCHY:

PARTICIPATION AND
OPPOSITION
WAQAS AZIZ
 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY
• A democracy is characterized by the government's ongoing responsiveness to citizens' preferences
as political equals.
• Three necessary conditions for democracy:
• Formulate preferences
• Signify preferences
• Have preferences weighed equally in government decisions
• INSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES FOR DEMOCRACY
• Essential Guarantees:
• Freedom to form and join organizations
• Freedom of expression
• Right to vote
• Right to compete for public office
• Alternative sources of information
• Free and fair elections
• Government policies based on public preferences
• Equal treatment of political leaders and voters
 DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIZATION
• PUBLIC CONTESTATION:
• Regimes vary in allowing public opposition, political competition, and contestation of
government policies.
• INCLUSIVENESS:
• The extent to which the population can equally participate in contesting government.
• E.g., Britain vs. Switzerland vs. USSR in historical context.
• Understanding Regime Variability:
• Public Contestation and Inclusiveness are two distinct dimensions of democratization.
• Inclusiveness measures the proportion of the population granted the right to
participate in government contests.
• Public Contestation reflects how freely citizens can oppose and challenge the
government.
• These dimensions are independent, and need to be understood in context when
comparing different regimes.
 TWO DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIZATION
• Key Dimensions of Democratization:
• Public Contestation
• The extent of political competition and opposition allowed by the regime.
• Right to Participate
• The degree to which the population has the right to participate equally in political processes.
• Figure 1.1: Illustrating Democratization as Two Dimensions

• These dimensions help explain the process of democratization and distinguish different regimes.
 PATHS OF REGIME CHANGE
• Regime Types and Pathways:
• Closed Hegemony (Lower Left Corner of Figure 1.2)A regime with minimal public contestation and limited
participation.
• Path I: Movement toward greater public contestation (Liberalization/Competitive).
• Path II: Movement toward greater inclusiveness (Popularization).
• Competitive Oligarchy (Upper Left Corner)
• A regime with some contestation but limited inclusiveness.
• Path I: Change to a more liberal regime, with increased contestation.
• Path II: More inclusive, but without an increase in contestation.
• Towards Polyarchy and Democratization
• Polyarchies:
• Regimes close to the upper right corner of the diagram, representing a high
degree of both inclusiveness and public contestation.
• These are considered relatively democratized regimes, though still not fully
democratic.
• Path III: Movement towards greater democratization by becoming both more
inclusive and more open to public contestation.
 THE CENTRAL AREA IN REGIME CLASSIFICATION
• Regimes in the Middle Area:
• Unclassified Region: The central space in the diagram is not named or subdivided.
• SIGNIFICANCE:
• Many regimes today fall into this central area, reflecting significant shifts in public contestation and inclusiveness.
• Regimes in this space can move towards or away from greater public contestation or inclusiveness.
• Terms for Mid-Area Regimes:
• Nearly Hegemonic: Slightly more contestation than a hegemonic regime.
• Near-Polyarchy: Highly inclusive but with some restrictions on contestation, or more contestation but slightly less
inclusiveness than a full polyarchy.
• TERMINOLOGY AND ITS LIMITATIONS
• Terminology Challenges:
• Arbitrary Boundaries: Terms like "near" and "nearly" are used to describe regimes that do not fit neatly into one category.
• Why the Terms Matter:
• Polyarchy: Used to distinguish real-world imperfect democracies from the ideal of democracy.
• Hegemony: Preferred over terms like "authoritarian" to describe regimes near the lower corner of the diagram.
• Public Contestation: Defined as the right to challenge or dispute government actions, and the use of this term helps avoid
semantic confusion.
• Restating the Central Question
• Key Questions:
• What conditions increase or decrease the chances of democratizing a hegemonic or nearly hegemonic
regime?
• What factors increase or decrease the chances of public contestation?
• What factors increase or decrease the chances of public contestation in highly inclusive regimes (polyarchies)?
• Focus of the Book
• Main Focus:
• The book is about the conditions under which systems of public contestation are likely to develop and exist.
• It specifically examines the transformation of hegemonies into near-polyarchies and near-polyarchies into full
polyarchies.
• Exclusions from the Analysis
• Exclusions:
• The book focuses on the first and second stages of democratization (from hegemonies to near-polyarchies and
full polyarchies).
• The third wave of democratization (the further democratization of full polyarchies) is not the focus here.
 STAGE OF DEMOCRATIZATION EMPHASIZED
• Key Stages:
• Hegemonies to Near-Polyarchies: Transformation seen in the Western world during the 19th century.
• Near-Polyarchies to Full Polyarchies: The process occurring in Europe after the First World War.
• The focus here is primarily on the first two stages of democratization.
• National Level Focus
• Focus of the Analysis:
• The book focuses on national regimes, specifically those at the level of legally independent states or nations.
• While subnational units (municipalities, trade unions, firms, etc.) are relevant, they are not the primary focus
of this analysis.
• Subnational Contestation and Participation
• Subnational Units:
• Regimes may differ in the opportunities they offer for contestation and participation at national and
subnational levels.
• Example: Yugoslavia offered greater self-government in subnational units than countries like Argentina or
Brazil.
• Critics argue that even in polyarchies, subnational units often remain hegemonic or oligarchic.
• Limitations of Analyzing Subnational Units
• Challenges:
• Analyzing subnational units would require an overwhelming amount
of data and would complicate the analysis.
• Subnational units vary in their opportunities for contestation and
participation (e.g., municipal governments vs. trade unions vs.
business firms).
• The book therefore restricts its attention to national regimes for
practical reasons.
 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT DEMOCRATIZATION
• Transformation Toward Polyarchy:
• As hegemonic regimes and competitive oligarchies move toward polyarchy, they increase
opportunities for participation and contestation.
• More individuals, groups, and interests become involved in policymaking, making the process
more complex.
• CONFLICT AND THE ROLE OF INCUMBENTS AND OPPONENTS
• Incumbents’ Perspective:
• Increased participation and contestation can lead to conflict and potential displacement of
current leaders by new spokesmen for newly incorporated groups.
• Opponents’ Perspective:
• More opportunities for opposition to translate goals into policies may lead to conflict with
those in power.
• Resulting Conflict:
• Greater conflict increases the likelihood that both sides will seek to deny each other
participation in policymaking.
 The Government’s Tolerance of Opposition (Axioms)

• Axiom 1:
• Likelihood of government tolerating opposition increases as the costs of toleration decrease.
• Axiom 2:
• Likelihood of government tolerating opposition increases as the costs of suppression increase.
• Axiom 3:
• Competitive regimes are more likely if the costs of suppression exceed the costs of toleration.
• Mutual Security and the Emergence of Competitive Regimes
• Security for Both Government and Opposition:
• The lower the costs of toleration, the greater the security for the government.
• The greater the costs of suppression, the greater the security for the opposition.
• High mutual security leads to more opportunities for contestation, which can increase the likelihood of
polyarchy.
• RESTATING THE QUESTION
• Key Question:
• What circumstances increase the mutual security of government and
opposition, and thereby enhance the chances of public contestation
and polyarchy?
• Next Step:
• Before answering, it’s important to first ask: Does polyarchy matter?
 Introduction to Polyarchy and Its Importance
• Question: Does polyarchy matter?
• Some believe regime changes have negligible consequences, especially in terms of regime differences.
• Skepticism based on historical intellectuals like Gaetano Mosca.
• Gaetano Mosca’s Perspective
• Mosca argued that all regimes are dominated by a ruling minority.
• Skepticism towards regime transformations and their impact on people's lives.
• Regime changes might simply involve personnel, rhetoric, or constitutional changes without true transformation.
• Intellectuals' Views on Regime Change
• Intellectuals (liberal/radical democrats) often view regime changes as significant.
• Experience under repressive regimes emphasizes the value of political change.
• Examples from Italian intellectuals like Mosca, Croce, and Salvemini.
• The Case of Italy’s Parliamentary Regime
• Italy’s shift from competitive oligarchy to inclusive polyarchy.
• Mosca’s late regret for the demise of the parliamentary regime.
• Fascism, despite its flaws, was considered worse than the parliamentary system.
• Impact of Political Regime Changes
• Examining whether regime differences (e.g., polyarchy vs. inclusive hegemony) truly matter.
• Significant changes can have major consequences, despite early skepticism.
• Classic Liberal Freedoms in Polyarchy
• Freedom of opposition, political organization, expression, and voting.
• Competitive regimes ensure electoral fairness and peaceful transitions.
• These freedoms may seem trivial but are critical in less democratic contexts.
• The Value of Political Freedoms
• Freedoms in well-established polyarchies may seem trivial to those who take them for granted.
• These freedoms are more valuable in repressive or authoritarian regimes.
• Examples of how intellectuals in Italy failed to foresee the loss of freedoms under Fascism.
• Expanded Participation and Political Leadership
• Broadened suffrage changes the composition of political leadership.
• Middle-class and working-class individuals gain more political influence.
• Example: Southern Negroes gaining suffrage post-Civil War.
• Political Leadership Changes Over Time
• Shifts in the socio-economic composition of parliaments after universal suffrage.
• Working-class representation increases when suffrage is expanded.
• Overrepresentation of middle-class and professional groups remains a challenge.
• Example: Reconstruction and Black Leadership
• Reconstruction led to Black political participation and office-holding.
• Disappearance of Black leaders after the end of Reconstruction.
• The re-emergence of Black political leaders after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• The Issue of Representativeness
• Parliaments never fully represent all socio-economic classes.
• The middle class is usually overrepresented in legislative bodies.
• Despite this, expanded suffrage makes parliaments more representative.
• Political Adaptation to New Voters
• Politicians adapt their rhetoric, policies, and ideologies to new voter groups.
• Increased competition leads to more responsive politicians.
• Example: Rise of socialist and labor parties in response to the inclusion of working-class voters.
• The Role of Socialist and Labor Parties
• Early demands for universal suffrage were tied to socialist
movements.
• Once the working classes gained voting rights, parties shifted focus to
represent them.
• Labor parties tailored their programs to address the needs of newly
enfranchised voters.
• Does Polyarchy Matter?
• Despite early skepticism, regime changes from hegemonic systems to
polyarchy have significant consequences.
• Political freedoms, broad participation, and changes in leadership
composition all underscore the importance of polyarchy.
• The transformation of regimes affects the quality and inclusiveness of
political systems.
 THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS
• Introduction to Political Change
• Political systems evolve over time through changes in suffrage and participation.
• The transition from a one-party hegemonic regime to a polyarchy involves significant changes in political dynamics.
• Transformations in Party Systems
• Political competition and inclusiveness trigger shifts in party systems.
• Transition examples: Italy, Germany, Japan (post-WWII); Britain (Reform Acts); Norway (1900).
• The formation of new parties as suffrage expands.
• The Growth of Modern Party Organizations
• Expansion of the electorate leads to the creation of modern party organizations.
• Local associations (e.g., in Britain’s Conservative and Liberal parties) emerge to mobilize voters.
• Increased competition and participation affect political life.
• The Effect of Political Competition on Voter Mobilization
• As parties expand their reach, nonpartisan or uncontested elections decrease.
• Increased competition leads to higher voter participation, especially in contested constituencies.
• The politicization of the electorate intensifies.
• The Impact of Polyarchy on Policy Representation
• Polyarchy allows a greater variety of political preferences and interests to be represented in policy making.
• A regime’s level of inclusiveness affects the diversity of interests in government policy.
• Mixed regimes and hegemonies represent fewer interests compared to polyarchies.
• Consequences for Government Policies
• It’s unclear if lower thresholds for participation and public contestation affect government policies.
• Some studies show political competition has limited effects on state policies.
• However, regime type influences policies involving coercion and repression.
• Coercion in Different Regimes
• Polyarchies are less likely to adopt policies involving large-scale coercion compared to hegemonies.
• Examples of coercion: Soviet collectivization, Stalin’s purges, Nazi policies.
• Polyarchies avoid extreme coercion due to broader participation.
• The Risk of Coercion in Exclusionary Systems
• In some cases, regimes like the U.S. South maintained dual systems to suppress excluded groups (e.g., African
Americans).
• Without public contestation and inclusivity, coercion becomes more feasible.
• The Southern U.S. system was less inclusive than other polyarchies.
• Conclusion and Future Directions
• Shifting from hegemonic regimes to polyarchy is often desirable, but
not inevitable.
• Understanding the conditions for increasing public contestation is
crucial for the development of democratic regimes.
• The book’s analysis aims to identify factors that favor or hinder the
transition to polyarchy.