Modernization requires the destruction of aristocracy and middle class and the rise of peasants which leads to a dictatorship. (Russia and China) // When aristocracy and peasantry are in control of the state it leads to a dictatorship so the conclusion is that democracy is led by the middle class. Where bourgeoisie is weak, democracy is weak. // CRITICS: The problem with this approach is that it over simplifies very complex issues. It uses very broad classes to describe the problem and uses secondary sources. Transitology or Transition Studies: In 1970, Rustow made a famous genetic approach to democracy: “Transitions to democracy: towards a dynamic model.” He wrote it before the 3º wave, before it happened. He wanted to know how democracies happen in the first place. This approach wasn’t structuralist like the others because it takes into account the human agency (wishing and preferences of people). It’s a way to bring the human agency into the picture. It studies how a transition to democracy emerges and the steps involve. The claim is that there are no necessary socioeconomic preconditions for democracy (poor undeveloped countries can also have a democracy). For Rustow, human agency is related to voluntarism: the idea that “If you really want it you can achieve it, you can do it”. It’s a pre-Obama with “YES WE CAN”.
- Background conditions (education, urbanization, industrialization…)
- Values and attitudes: political culture of a country. Many authors believe that only countries with democratic people and democratic values will have a democracy. But Rustow says that democracy is the product of conflict, it’s a way of resolving conflicts. So first democracy and then a political culture will follow, not the other way around. Conflict > Democracy > Political culture. // Nobody was born with democracy, there is only 1 background condition: national unity. By this he means “Before we can say we the people need to know who we the people are.”