Democratic consolidation

Some scholars think that the process by which a democracy becomes consolidated involves the creation and improvement of secondary institutions of the democracy. Linz and Stepan's[1] thesis, for example, is that democracy is consolidated by the presence of the institutions supporting and surrounding elections. They distinct five conditions that must be present in a state, in order for a democracy to be consolidated; First, there needs to be a ‘civil society’, which Linz & Stepan describe as an “arena of the polity where self-organizing and relatively autonomous groups, movements, and individuals attempt to articulate values, to create associations and solidarities, and to advance their interests”.[1] Secondly, there must be a relatively autonomous 'political society', which is the arena in which political actors can compete with one another for the legitimate right to rule. The third condition is that all actors throughout the state’s territory are subject to the rule of law. Fourthly, there must be an existing system of state bureaucracy that is ready for the democratic government to use. Lastly, there must be an institutionalized economic society, by which Linz & Stepan mean that consolidated democracies cannot co-exist alongside a command economy, nor alongside a pure free-market economy. So in order for democracies to be able to consolidate, there needs to be a set of economic norms, institutions, and regulations that mediates between the state and the market, according to Linz & Stepan.[1]

O'Donnell believes that the institutionalization of electoral rules is not the most interesting feature of democratic consolidation. He thinks that scholars focus too much on the formal institutions as drivers of consolidation, while the informal institutions and rules in a state are often overlooked. It’s the informal rules and norms that often shape the behaviour and expectations of all sorts of political actors. His approach is to compare the formal institutional rules (for example the constitution) with the informal practices of actors, arguing that in many countries exists a ‘gap’ between the two. Consolidation on this view is when the actors in a system follow (have informally institutionalised) the formal rules of the democratic institution.[2]

Political culture is linked to democratic consolidation. Scholars Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, in The Civic Culture (1963), argued that public participation in government and attitudes toward government were significant in democratic transition and consolidation.[3] Some scholars identify political tolerance and trust in institutions as important to democratic consolidation.[4]

One of the suggested obstacles to democratic consolidation is brain drain in which high skilled workers from developing countries migrate to high-income and capital-rich countries. This leaves many new democracies in the developing world problems in terms of steering effective governance due to the lack of high-skilled professionals.[5]

Whether Mexico is a fully consolidated democracy is the source of much debate, but the process has clearly begun in the country. After over 70 years of authoritarian rule under the Mexican PRI party, Mexican politics have transitioned into a competitive, multi-party system.[6] Their courts are independent and may check the powers of other branches of government, and media censorship is slowly loosening its grip. Recent political results, such as those of the 2018 presidential election, suggest that the PRI is unlikely to regain sole power over the country.

In general, the countries of western Europe serve as examples of fully consolidated democracies. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands, for example, are both very unlikely to revert to authoritarian monarchies, because they have adopted the aspects that are often associated with fully consolidated democracies: There is adherence to the rule of law, they frequently organize fair and competitive elections and they have a developed civil society.