From Dictatorship to Democracy - What causes Democratisation?
Around half the countries around the world are democracies. It is hard to pin down a specific number; Freedom House places it at 44%, Polity at 57%, and The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index places it at 45% (DeSilver, 2019). These numbers show that democracy are commonplace, if not the most common form of governance in our modern world. Yet, democracy is far more nuanced than a set of statistics – the process of democratisation (i.e. implementing a stable democratic system) involves two aspects: both the bringing into existence as well as the stability of democracy (Lipset, 1959).
Democratisation is a complex process, with no two countries taking the same path to building democracy. However, these are broadly spurred by agentic factors (e.g. authoritarian leaders, activists, and international actors) and structural factors (e.g. economic development and cultural shifts). While agentic factors are typically the catalyst for democratisation, long-term structural approaches lay the foundations for democracy, as well as playing a more significant role in sustaining democracy over an extended period of time.
Agentic factors are often the catalyst in both peaceful and violent transitions towards democracy. Youth activists and international actors played a pivotal role in the movements that shifted semi-authoritarian regimes to become democracies in Serbia, Slovakia, and Georgia (Bunce & Wolchik, 2006), while nations with close linkages to the United States were subject to increased international pressures on the incumbent authoritarian leaders and increased support for domestic opposition groups, increasing their likelihood of democratising (Levitsky & Way, 2005). Agents could also include authoritarian leaders themselves – some opt to democratise when the benefits outweigh the risks of doing so, such as gaining increased global recognition in exchange for some power (Riedl et al., 2020). The importance of agentic factors seems only logical – it is a direct push that leads to a real shift to democracy – and it is the case in the vast majority of countries that have democratised. Indeed, even in countries that are often cited as exceptions to this trend, the process of transition itself was a direct result of actions carried out by actors. South Korea and Taiwan’s transitions to democracy are often attributed to structural factors such as rapid economic and social development (Huntington, 1991), yet the June Democracy Movement in South Korea and the loosening of martial law in Taiwan by the authoritarian leader Chiang Ching-kuo was the direct catalyst for their transitions to democracy. While the degree to which agentic factors play a role in democratisation varies, they are often present and provide the critical push that brings about democracy.
However, structural factors provide the necessary environment for agentic factors to succeed in bringing about democracy. Emancipative values – the embrace of “universal, libertarian, and egalitarian values” – are generally increasing globally, strengthening the commitment of younger generations to the principles of democracy (Welzel, 2021). As these emancipative values are correlated to a genuine belief in democratic principles, those who hold such beliefs would typically be supportive of implementing democracy. This is crucial in providing youth activists with the motivation to join the cause for democratisation and become active in politics, allowing them to inject fresh approaches, perspectives, and energy to the movement (Bunce & Wolchik, 2006). This also enables a broader shift in society’s perception of democracy, which boosts mass participation in civil movements and increases domestic pressures for democracy. With mass mobilisation being an important factor in more than half the democratic transitions between 1980 and 2008 (Haggard & Kaufman, 2016), it is clear that societal support is crucial in the push for democracy.
Though structural factors do not play a major role in some countries’ transitions to democracy, especially those who undergo transitions due to the influence and pressure of international actors, these countries would not have the capacity to sustain a democratic system without the proper structure. Without a democratic culture, there would be a growing regime-versus-culture mismatch – this disconnect gradually grows, and as the population lacks a genuine belief in democracy and an incentive to defend it, they would be prone to democratic backsliding (Welzel, 2021). This is seen in Haiti, where the United States intervened in 1994, attempting to implement democracy through force. Democracy in Haiti remains unstable to this day, in part due to a lack of support for democracy, with barely half of the population supporting democracy as a form of governance three decades on (Dupouy et al., 2023). This is certainly exacerbated by the ongoing economic turmoil that has left 59% of its population below the poverty line (UNICEF, 2023). As these nations are unable to sustain democracy, they are unable to fully democratise. Therefore, structural factors play a major part in laying the foundation for agentic factors to bring on lasting change in democratising.
Economic stability also plays a role in minimising democratic backsliding, being a structural factor that plays an indirect role in sustaining democracy. Economic downturns highlight social divisions and increase political polarisation, which boosts the popularity of authoritarian politics and threatens democratic ideals (Huntington, 1991). As Tocqueville summed up, “among civilized nations revolts are rarely excited except by such persons as have nothing to lose by them” (Tocqueville, 1835). Democracies that provide its people with a satisfactory standard of living are deemed to be effective and are thus more likely to be stable and sustained, making economic development critical to ensuring democratisation.
Agentic factors, such as former pro-democracy activists and international organisations, provide checks and balances that sustain democratic systems, ensuring that the political system remains fair for opposition groups and civil liberties remain protected, as well as participating in politics themselves (Bunce & Wolchik, 2006). This ensures that there is balanced opposition to the incumbents, allowing for competitive elections, which itself sustains democracy. International organisations are able to apply pressure on governments to uphold democratic norms, utilising warnings and sanctions to punish them. For example, in response to the establishment of a military junta in Myanmar in 2021, the Burmese military faced widespread global condemnation, as well as economic sanctions from the United States. However, as international actors are unable to intervene directly and are only able to pressurise governments, they are limited in their ability to ensure the sustenance of a country.
Agentic factors and long-term structural approaches both play an indispensable part in a country’s transition to and sustenance of democracy. Agentic factors catalyse the transition to democracy and works to sustain it by ensuring that incumbents do not erode democratic elements, though this varies in impact depending on the actor – domestic actors who are active in the country’s politics themselves would be able to make a larger and more direct impact than international actors, who are limited in measures that they could take. Long-term structural approaches provide the foundation required for the transition to democracy to take place, and sustains democracy by preventing backsliding by lowering the risks of discontent amongst the people. Ultimately, while a democracy’s beginning depends on a disruptive change, a democracy’s longevity and ability to endure in the long run depends on the strength of its structure.
By Macy Ng
References:
Bunce, V., & Wolchik, S. L. (2006). ‘Youth and Electoral Revolutions in Slovakia, Serbia, and Georgia’, SAIS Review of International Affairs, 26/2: 55–65. Project MUSE. DOI: 10.1353/sais.2006.0028
DeSilver, D. (2019). Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/.
Dupouy, C., Rodríguez, M., & Schweizer-Robinson, V. (2023). Pulse of Democracy in Haiti. Retrieved September 3, 2026, from <https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/haiti/ABHTI2023-Pulse-of-democracy-final-20240416.pdf#page=13.09>
Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2016). ‘Democratization During the Third Wave’, Annual Review of Political Science, 19/1: 125–44. Annual Reviews. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015137
Huntington, S. P. (1991). ‘Democracy’s Third Wave’, Journal of Democracy, 2/2: 12–34. Project MUSE. DOI: 10.1353/jod.1991.0016
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2005). ‘International Linkage and Democratization’, Journal of Democracy, 16/3: 20–34. Project MUSE. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2005.0048
Lipset, S. M. (1959). ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, American Political Science Review, 53/1: 69–105. Cambridge University Press (CUP). DOI: 10.2307/1951731
Riedl, R. B., Slater, D., Wong, J., & Ziblatt, D. (2020). ‘Authoritarian-Led Democratization’, Annual Review of Political Science, 23/1: 315–32. Annual Reviews. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-052318-025732
Tocqueville, A. de. (1835). Democracy in America. (G. E. Bevan, Tran.).
UNICEF. (2023). Humanitarian Action for Children: Haiti. Retrieved September 3, 2026, from <https://www.unicef.org/media/132191/file/2023-HAC-Haiti.pdf>
Welzel, C. (2021). ‘Why The Future Is Democratic’, Journal of Democracy, 32/2: 132–44. Project MUSE. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2021.0024
