View source for Democratization

{{short description|Society becoming more democratic}}
{{about|the process by which political systems become more democratic|other uses}}
{{democracy}}
[[File:Number of countries experiencing autocratization and democratization, 1900–2000.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Since 1900, the number of countries democratizing (yellow) has been higher than those [[autocratizing]] (blue), except in the late 1920s through 1940s and since 2010]]

'''Democratization''', or '''democratisation''', is the structural government transition from an [[democratic transition|authoritarian government to a more democratic]] political [[regime]], including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.<ref name="Arugay 2021 pp. 1–7">{{cite book | last=Arugay | first=Aries A. | title=The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies | chapter=Democratic Transitions | publisher=Springer International Publishing | publication-place=Cham | year=2021 | isbn=978-3-319-74336-3 | doi=10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1 | pages=1–7| s2cid=240235199 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lindenfors |first1=Patrik |last2=Wilson |first2=Matthew |last3=Lindberg |first3=Staffan I. |title=The Matthew effect in political science: head start and key reforms important for democratization |journal=[[Humanities and Social Sciences Communications]] |date=2020 |volume=7 |issue=106 |doi=10.1057/s41599-020-00596-7 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Whether and to what extent democratization occurs can be influenced by various factors, including economic development, historical legacies, civil society, and international processes. Some accounts of democratization emphasize how elites drove democratization, whereas other accounts emphasize grassroots bottom-up processes.<ref name="Schmitz 2004 pp. 403–426">{{cite journal | last=Schmitz | first=Hans Peter | title=Domestic and Transnational Perspectives on Democratization | journal=International Studies Review | publisher=[International Studies Association, Wiley] | volume=6 | issue=3 | year=2004 | issn=1521-9488| jstor=3699697 | pages=403–426 | doi=10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.00423.x | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699697 }}</ref> How democratization occurs has also been used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows.<ref name="Bogaards 2010 pp. 475–488">{{cite journal |last=Bogaards |first=Matthijs |year=2010 |title=Measures of Democratization: From Degree to Type to War |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20721505 |journal=Political Research Quarterly |publisher=[University of Utah, Sage Publications, Inc.] |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=475–488 |doi=10.1177/1065912909358578 |issn=1065-9129 |jstor=20721505 |s2cid=154168435}}</ref>

The opposite process is known as [[democratic backsliding]] or autocratization.

== Description ==
{{further|Hybrid regime}}
[[File:BTI 2022 DEM.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6| Global trend report [[Bertelsmann Transformation Index]] 2022 <ref name="BTI 2022a">{{cite web | title=Global Dashboard | website=BTI 2022 | url=https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000 | access-date=Apr 17, 2023}}</ref>]]
Theories of democratization seek to explain a large macro-level change of a political regime from authoritarianism to democracy. Symptoms of democratization include [[electoral reform|reform]] of the [[electoral system]], increased [[suffrage]] and reduced [[political apathy]].

=== Measures of democratization ===
Democracy indices enable the quantitative assessment of democratization. Some common democracy indices are [[Freedom House]], [[Polity data series]], [[V-Dem Democracy indices]] and [[Democracy Index]]. Democracy indices can be quantitative or categorical. Some disagreements among scholars concern the concept of [[democracy]] and how to measure democracy – and what [[democracy indices]] should be used.

=== Waves of democratization ===
One way to summarize the outcome theories of democratization seek to account is with the idea of [[Waves of democracy|waves of democratization]]

[[File:Waves of democracy.png|thumb|upright=1.5|right|The three waves of democracy identified by Samuel P. Huntington]]
A wave of democratization refers to a major surge of democracy in history. And [[Samuel P. Huntington]] identified three waves of democratization that have taken place in history.<ref name="huntington">{{cite book|title=Democratization in the Late 20th century|last=Huntington|first=Samuel P.|publisher=University of Oklahoma Press|year=1991|location=Norman|author-link=Samuel P. Huntington}}</ref> The first one brought democracy to Western Europe and Northern America in the 19th century. It was followed by a rise of dictatorships during the [[Interwar period]]. The second wave began after [[World War II]], but lost steam between 1962 and the mid-1970s. The latest wave began in 1974 and is still ongoing. Democratization of [[Latin America]] and the former [[Eastern Bloc]] is part of this [[Waves of democracy#Third wave|third wave]].

Waves of democratization can be followed by waves of de-democratization. Thus, Huntington, in 1991, offered the following depiction.

• First wave of democratization, 1828–1926

• First wave of de-democratization, 1922–42

• Second wave of democratization, 1943–62

• Second wave of de-democratization, 1958–75

• Third wave of democratization, 1974–

The idea of waves of democratization has also been used and scrutinized by many other authors, including Renske Doorenspleet,<ref>Renske Doorenspleet, "Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization." ''World Politics'' 52(3) 2000: 384–406.</ref> [[John Markoff (sociologist)|John Markoff]],<ref name=":9">John Markoff, ''Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change'', Second Edition. New York: Routledge, 2015.</ref> [[Seva Gunitsky]],<ref name=":02"/> and Svend-Erik Skaaning.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194 | doi=10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194 | title=Waves of autocratization and democratization: A critical note on conceptualization and measurement | date=2020 | last1=Skaaning | first1=Svend-Erik | journal=Democratization | volume=27 | issue=8 | pages=1533–1542 | s2cid=225378571 }}</ref>

According to Seva Gunitsky, from the 18th century to the [[Arab Spring]] (2011–2012), 13 democratic waves can be identified.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last=Gunitsky|first=Seva|date=2018|title=Democratic Waves in Historical Perspective|journal=Perspectives on Politics|language=en|volume=16|issue=3|pages=634–651|doi=10.1017/S1537592718001044|s2cid=149523316 |s2cid-access=free |issn=1537-5927 |url=http://individual.utoronto.ca/seva/democratic_waves.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221226044721/http://individual.utoronto.ca/seva/democratic_waves.pdf |archive-date= Dec 26, 2022 }}</ref>

The [[V-Dem Institute#Democracy Report|V-Dem Democracy Report]] identified for the year 2023 9 cases of stand-alone democratization in East Timor, The Gambia, Honduras, Fiji, Dominican Republic, Solomon Islands, Montenegro, Seychelles, and Kosovo and 9 cases of U-Turn Democratization in Thailand, Maldives, Tunisia, Bolivia, Zambia, Benin, North Macedonia, Lesotho, and Brazil.<ref name="report">[https://v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf Democracy Report 2024, Varieties of Democracy]</ref>

== By country ==
{{republicanism sidebar}}
Throughout the [[history of democracy]], enduring democracy advocates succeed almost always through peaceful means when there is a window of opportunity. One major type of opportunity include governments weakened after a violent shock.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Miller |first=Michael K. |title=Shock to the system: coups, elections, and war on the road to democratization |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2021 |isbn=978-0-691-21701-7 |location=Princeton Oxford |chapter=Ch. 2}}</ref> The other main avenue occurs when autocrats are not threatened by elections, and democratize while retaining power.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Miller |first=Michael K. |date=April 2021 |title=Don't Call It a Comeback: Autocratic Ruling Parties After Democratization |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123419000012/type/journal_article |journal=British Journal of Political Science |language=en |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=559–583 |doi=10.1017/S0007123419000012 |s2cid=203150075 |issn=0007-1234}}</ref> The path to democracy can be long with setbacks along the way.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Berman |first=Sherri |date=January 2007 |title=How Democracy Works: Lessons from Europe |url=http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/gratis/Berman-18-1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211151623/http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/gratis/Berman-18-1.pdf |archive-date=2012-02-11 |access-date=2008-04-17 |website=[[Journal of Democracy]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hegre |first=Håvard |date=May 15, 2014 |title=Democratization and Political Violence |url=https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/democratization-and-political-violence |access-date=2021-02-14 |website=ourworld.unu.edu}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Andersen|first=David|date=2021|title=Democratization and Violent Conflict: Is There A Scandinavian Exception?|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9477.12178|journal=Scandinavian Political Studies|language=en|volume=44|issue=1|pages=1–12|doi=10.1111/1467-9477.12178|s2cid=225624391|issn=1467-9477}}</ref>

=== Athens ===
{{Excerpt|Athenian Revolution|paragraphs=1}}

=== Benin ===
{{Excerpt|1989–1990 unrest in Benin|paragraphs=1}}

=== Brazil ===
{{Excerpt|Redemocratization in Brazil|paragraphs=1}}

=== Chile ===
{{Excerpt|Chilean transition to democracy|paragraphs=1}}

=== France ===
The [[French Revolution]] (1789) briefly allowed a wide franchise. The [[French Revolutionary Wars]] and the [[Napoleonic Wars]] lasted for more than twenty years. The [[French Directory]] was more oligarchic. The [[First French Empire]] and the [[Bourbon Restoration in France|Bourbon Restoration]] restored more autocratic rule. The [[French Second Republic]] had universal male suffrage but was followed by the [[Second French Empire]]. The [[Franco-Prussian War]] (1870–71) resulted in the [[French Third Republic]].

=== Germany ===
Germany established its first democracy in 1919 with the creation of the [[Weimar Republic]], a parliamentary republic created following the [[German Empire]]'s defeat in [[World War I]]. The Weimar Republic lasted only 14 years before it collapsed and [[Adolf Hitler's rise to power|was replaced]] by [[Nazi Germany|Nazi dictatorship]].<ref name="Berger">Stefan Berger, "The Attempt at Democratization under Weimar" in ''European Democratization since 1800''. Eds. John Garrard, Vera Tolz & Ralph White (Springer, 2000), pp. 96–115.</ref> Historians continue to debate the reasons why the Weimar Republic's attempt at democratization failed.<ref name="Berger" /> After Germany [[End of World War II in Europe|was militarily defeated in World War II]], democracy was reestablished in [[West Germany]] during the [[Allied-occupied Germany|U.S.-led occupation]] which undertook the [[denazification]] of society.<ref>Richard L. Merritt, ''Democracy Imposed: U.S. Occupation Policy and the German Public, 1945–1949'' (Yale University Press, 1995).</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
[[File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Magna Carta in the British Library. The document was described as "the chief cause of Democracy in England".]]
In Great Britain, there was [[Magna Carta#17th–18th centuries|renewed interest in Magna Carta]] in the 17th century.<ref>{{Cite web |title=From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century |url=https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century |access-date=2017-10-16 |website=The British Library |postscript=none |archive-date=2017-10-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018101349/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century |url-status=dead }}; {{Cite web |title=Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century |url=https://www.sal.org.uk/events/2015/06/magna-carta-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925053248/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century |archive-date=2018-09-25 |access-date=2017-10-16 |website=The Society of Antiquaries of London }}</ref> The [[Parliament of England]] enacted the [[Petition of Right]] in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects. The [[English Civil War]] (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament,<ref>{{cite web |title=Origins and growth of Parliament |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm |access-date=7 April 2015 |publisher=The National Archives}}</ref> during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the [[Putney Debates]] of 1647.<ref>{{cite web |title=Putney debates |url=https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates |access-date=22 December 2016 |publisher=The British Library |archive-date=22 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222223321/https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates |url-status=dead }}</ref> Subsequently, [[the Protectorate]] (1653–59) and the [[Stuart Restoration|English Restoration]] (1660) restored more autocratic rule although Parliament passed the [[Habeas Corpus Act 1679|Habeas Corpus Act]] in 1679, which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The [[Glorious Revolution]] in 1688 established a strong Parliament that passed the [[Bill of Rights 1689]], which codified certain rights and liberties for individuals.<ref>{{cite web |title=Britain's unwritten constitution |url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution |access-date=27 November 2015 |publisher=British Library |quote=The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'. |archive-date=8 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208232341/http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution |url-status=dead }}</ref> It set out the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, [[Absolute monarchy|royal absolutism]] would not prevail.<ref>{{cite web |title=Constitutionalism: America & Beyond |url=http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html |archive-date=24 October 2014 |access-date=30 October 2014 |publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State |quote=The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th, and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism). This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects.... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The "rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Rise of Parliament |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citizenship2.htm |access-date=2010-08-22 |publisher=The National Archives}}</ref> Only with the [[Representation of the People Act 1884]] did a majority of the males get the vote.

=== Greece ===
{{Excerpt|Metapolitefsi|paragraphs=1}}

=== Indonesia ===
{{Excerpt|Post-Suharto era in Indonesia|paragraphs=1}}

=== Italy ===
[[File:Carlo Alberto firma lo Statuto.jpg|thumb|right|King [[Charles Albert of Sardinia]] signs the [[Statuto Albertino|Albertine Statute]], 4 March 1848.]]
[[File:Referendum-2-giugno scheda elettorale.jpg|thumb|Electoral ballot of the [[1946 Italian institutional referendum]]]]

In September 1847, [[Insurrection of 1847 in the Two Sicilies|violent riots inspired by Liberals]] broke out in [[Reggio Calabria]] and in [[Messina]] in the [[Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]], which were put down by the military. On 12 January 1848 a [[Sicilian revolution of independence of 1848|rising in Palermo]] spread throughout the island and served as a spark for the [[Revolutions of 1848]] all over Europe. After similar revolutionary outbursts in [[Salerno]], south of [[Naples]], and in the [[Cilento]] region which were backed by the majority of the intelligentsia of the Kingdom, on 29 January 1848 King [[Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies]] was forced to grant a constitution, using for a pattern the French [[Charter of 1830]]. This constitution was quite advanced for its time in liberal democratic terms, as was the proposal of a unified [[Italy|Italian]] confederation of states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pti.regione.sicilia.it/portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_150ANNI/PIR_150ANNISITO/PIR_Schede/PIR_Gliautonomistisiciliani|title=AUTONOMISMO E UNITÀ|access-date=16 September 2023|language=it}}</ref> On 11 February 1848, [[Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany|Leopold II of Tuscany]], first cousin of Emperor [[Ferdinand I of Austria]], granted the Constitution, with the general approval of his subjects. The Habsburg example was followed by [[Charles Albert of Sardinia]] ([[Statuto Albertino|Albertine Statute]]; later became the constitution of the [[Proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy|unified Kingdom of Italy]] and remained in force, with changes, until 1948<ref>{{cite book|last=Mack Smith|first=Denis |title=Modern Italy: A Political History|publisher=Yale University Press |year=1997}}</ref>) and by [[Pope Pius IX]] (Fundamental Statute). However, only King Charles Albert maintained the statute even after the end of the riots.

The [[Kingdom of Italy]], after the [[unification of Italy]] in 1861, was a [[constitutional monarchy]]. The new kingdom was governed by a parliamentary constitutional monarchy dominated by liberals.{{efn|In 1848, [[Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour]] had formed a parliamentary group in the [[Kingdom of Sardinia (1720–1861)|Kingdom of Sardinia]] Parliament named the ''Partito Liberale Italiano'' (Italian Liberal Party). From 1860, with the [[Italian unification|Unification of Italy]] substantially realized and the death of Cavour himself in 1861, the Liberal Party was split into at least two major factions or new parties later known as the ''Destra Storica'' on the right-wing, who substantially assembled the Count of Cavour's followers and political heirs; and the ''Sinistra Storica'' on the left-wing, who mostly reunited the followers and sympathizers of [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] and other former [[Giuseppe Mazzini|Mazzinians]]. The Historical Right (''Destra Storica'') and the Historical Left (''Sinistra Storica'') were composed of royalist liberals. At the same time, radicals organized themselves into the [[Italian Radical Party|Radical Party]] and republicans into the [[Italian Republican Party]].}} The [[Italian Socialist Party]] increased in strength, challenging the traditional liberal and conservative establishment. From 1915 to 1918, the Kingdom of Italy took part in [[World War I]] on the side of the [[Allies of World War I|Entente]] and against the [[Central Powers]]. In 1922, following a period of crisis and turmoil, the [[Italian Fascism|Italian fascist]] dictatorship was established. During [[World War II]], Italy was first part of the [[Axis powers|Axis]] until it surrendered to the [[Allies of World War II|Allied powers]] (1940–1943) and then, as part of its territory was occupied by [[Nazi Germany]] with [[Italian Social Republic|fascist collaboration]], a co-belligerent of the Allies during the [[Italian resistance]] and the subsequent [[Italian Civil War]], and the [[liberation of Italy]] (1943–1945). The aftermath of World War II left Italy also with an anger against the monarchy for its endorsement of the [[Fascist Italy (1922–1943)|Fascist regime]] for the previous twenty years. These frustrations contributed to a revival of the Italian republican movement.<ref>{{Citation|year=1970|title=Italia|encyclopedia=Dizionario enciclopedico italiano|volume=VI|page=456|publisher=[[Treccani]]|language=it}}</ref> [[Italy]] became a republic after the [[1946 Italian institutional referendum]]<ref>{{cite video |year=1946 |title=Damage Foreshadows A-Bomb Test, 1946/06/06 (1946) |url=https://archive.org/details/1946-06-06_Damage_Foreshadows_A-Bomb_Test |publisher=[[Universal Newsreel]] |access-date=22 February 2012}}</ref> held on 2 June, a day celebrated since as ''[[Festa della Repubblica]]''. Italy has a written democratic [[Constitution of Italy|constitution]], resulting from the work of a [[Constituent Assembly of Italy|Constituent Assembly]] formed by the representatives of all the [[anti-fascist]] forces that contributed to the defeat of Nazi and Fascist forces during the [[liberation of Italy]] and the [[Italian Civil War]],<ref>Smyth, Howard McGaw Italy: From Fascism to the Republic (1943–1946) ''The Western Political Quarterly'' vol. 1 no. 3 (pp. 205–222), September 1948.{{JSTOR|442274}}</ref> and coming into force on 1 January 1948.

=== Japan ===
In [[Japan]], limited democratic reforms were introduced during the [[Meiji (era)|Meiji]] period (when the industrial modernization of Japan began), the [[Taishō]] period (1912–1926), and the early [[Shōwa (1926–1989)|Shōwa]] period.<ref name="Calder">Kent E. Calder, "East Asian Democratic Transitions" in ''The Making and Unmaking of Democracy: Lessons from History and World Politics'' (eds. Theodore K. Rabb & Ezra N. Suleiman: Routledge, 2003). pp. 251–59.</ref> Despite pro-democracy movements such as the [[Freedom and People's Rights Movement]] (1870s and 1880s) and some proto-democratic institutions, Japanese society remained constrained by a highly conservative society and bureaucracy.<ref name="Calder" /> Historian [[Kent E. Calder]] notes that writers that "Meiji leadership embraced constitutional government with some pluralist features for essentially tactical reasons" and that pre-World war II Japanese society was dominated by a "loose coalition" of "landed rural elites, big business, and the military" that was averse to pluralism and reformism.<ref name="Calder" /> While the [[National Diet#History|Imperial Diet]] survived the impacts of [[Japanese militarism]], the [[Great Depression]], and the [[Pacific War]], other pluralistic institutions, such as [[Political parties of the Empire of Japan|political parties]], did not. After World War II, during the [[Occupation of Japan|Allied occupation]], Japan adopted a much more vigorous, pluralistic democracy.<ref name="Calder" />

[[File:Elecciones 1888 valpo.png|thumb|upright=1.5| Voting in Valparaíso, Chile, in 1888.]]

=== Madagascar===
{{Excerpt|1990–1992 movement in Madagascar|paragraphs=1}}

=== Malawi===
{{Excerpt|1993 Malawian democracy referendum|paragraphs=2}}

=== Latin America ===
Countries in [[Latin America]] became independent between 1810 and 1825, and soon had some early experiences with representative government and elections. All Latin American countries established representative institutions soon after independence, the early cases being those of [[Colombia]] in 1810, [[Paraguay]] and [[Venezuela]] in 1811, and [[Chile]] in 1818.<ref>Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune, ''Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 47.</ref> [[Adam Przeworski]] shows that some experiments with representative institutions in Latin America occurred earlier than in most European countries.<ref>Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune, ''Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 2; Przeworski, Adam, "The Mechanics of Regime Instability in Latin America." ''Journal of Politics in Latin America'' 1(1) 2009: 5–36.</ref> Mass democracy, in which the working class had the right to vote, become common only in the 1930s and 1940s.<ref>Collier, Ruth Berins, and David Collier. ''Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991; Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens, ''Capitalist Development and Democracy''. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992; Collier, Ruth Berins, ''Paths Toward Democracy: The Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Drake, Paul W.. ''Between Tyranny and Anarchy: A History of Democracy in Latin America, 1800–2006''. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2009.</ref>

=== Portugal ===
{{Excerpt|Portuguese transition to democracy|paragraphs=1}}

=== Senegal ===
{{Excerpt|Democratization in Senegal|paragraphs=1}}

=== Spain ===
{{Excerpt|Spanish transition to democracy|paragraphs=1,2}}

=== South Africa===
{{Excerpt|Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa|paragraphs=1}}

=== South Korea ===
{{Excerpt|June Democratic Struggle|paragraphs=1}}

=== Soviet Union ===
{{Excerpt|Demokratizatsiya (Soviet Union)|paragraphs=1}}

=== Switzerland ===
{{Excerpt|Switzerland as a federal state|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs}}

=== Roman Republic ===
{{Excerpt|Overthrow of the Roman monarchy|paragraphs=1}}

=== Tunisia ===
{{Excerpt|Tunisian Revolution|paragraphs=1}}

=== Ukraine ===
{{Excerpt|1989–1991 Ukrainian revolution|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs}}

=== United States of America ===
The [[American Revolution]] (1765–1783) created the United States. The new [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] established a relatively strong federal national government that included an [[President of the United States|executive]], a [[Supreme Court of the United States|national judiciary]], and a bicameral [[United States Congress|Congress]] that represented states in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and the population in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]].<ref name="Wood, 1992">Wood, ''The Radicalism of the American Revolution'' (1992)</ref><ref>Greene and Pole (1994) chapter 70</ref> In many fields, it was a success ideologically in the sense that a true republic was established that never had a single dictator, but [[Voting rights in the United States|voting rights]] were initially restricted to [[White Americans|white]] male property owners (about 6% of the population).<ref>{{cite web |title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties – The Right of Suffrage |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html |archive-date=July 6, 2016 |access-date=April 21, 2015 |website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom |publisher=National Archives}}</ref> Slavery was not abolished in the Southern states until the constitutional [[Reconstruction Amendments|Amendments]] of the [[Reconstruction era]] following the [[American Civil War]] (1861–1865). The provision of [[Civil rights movement|Civil Rights]] for African-Americans to overcome post-Reconstruction [[Jim Crow]] segregation in the South was achieved in the 1960s.

==Causes and factors==
There is considerable debate about the factors which affect (e.g., promote or limit) democratization.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerring |first1=John |last2=Knutsen |first2=Carl Henrik |last3=Berge |first3=Jonas |title=Does Democracy Matter? |journal=[[Annual Review of Political Science]] |date=2022 |volume=25 |pages=357–375 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910 |doi-access=free|hdl=10852/100947 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Factors discussed include economic, political, cultural, individual agents and their choices, international and historical.

=== Economic factors ===

==== Economic development and modernization theory ====
[[File:Museum of Science and Industry, Power Hall - geograph.org.uk - 3025961.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Industrialization was seen by many theorists as a driver of democratization.]]
Scholars such as [[Seymour Martin Lipset]];<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lipset|first=Seymour Martin|s2cid=53686238|date=1959|title=Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=53|issue=1|pages=69–105|doi=10.2307/1951731|issn=0003-0554|jstor=1951731}}</ref> Carles Boix and [[Susan Stokes]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Boix|first1=Carles|last2=Stokes|first2=Susan C.|date=2003|title=Endogenous Democratization|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=55|issue=4|pages=517–549|doi=10.1353/wp.2003.0019|issn=0043-8871|s2cid=18745191}}</ref> and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, [[Evelyne Huber|Evelyne Stephens]], and John Stephens<ref>{{Cite book|title=Capitalist Development and Democracy|publisher=University Of Chicago Press|year=1992}}</ref> argue that [[economic development]] increases the likelihood of democratization. Initially argued by Lipset in 1959, this subsequently been referred to as [[modernization theory]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Geddes|first=Barbara|editor1-first=Robert E|editor1-last=Goodin|date=2011|title=What Causes Democratization|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-029|url-status=live|website=The Oxford Handbook of Political Science|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001|isbn=978-0-19-960445-6|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140530042316/http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com:80/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-029 |archive-date=2014-05-30 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Korom|first=Philipp|date=2019|title=The political sociologist Seymour M. Lipset: Remembered in political science, neglected in sociology|journal=European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology|volume=6|issue=4|pages=448–473|doi=10.1080/23254823.2019.1570859|issn=2325-4823|pmc=7099882|pmid=32309461}}</ref> According to Daniel Treisman, there is "a strong and consistent relationship between higher income and both democratization and democratic survival in the medium term (10–20 years), but not necessarily in shorter time windows."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Treisman|first=Daniel|date=2020|title=Economic Development and Democracy: Predispositions and Triggers|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=23|pages=241–257|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-043546|issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free}}</ref> [[Robert Dahl]] argued that market economies provided favorable conditions for democratic institutions.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300194463/democracy|title=On Democracy|last=Dahl|first=Robert|website=yalebooks.yale.edu|publisher=Yale University Press|access-date=2020-02-02}}</ref>

A higher [[List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita|GDP/capita]] correlates with democracy and some claim the wealthiest democracies have never been observed to fall into authoritarianism.<ref name="przeworski">{{cite book | last = Przeworski | first = Adam | author-link = Adam Przeworski| title = Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2000 | location = Cambridge|display-authors=etal}}</ref> The rise of Hitler and of the Nazis in Weimar Germany can be seen as an obvious counter-example, but although in early 1930s Germany was already an advanced economy, by that time, the country was also living in a state of economic crisis virtually since the first World War (in the 1910s), a crisis which was eventually worsened by the effects of the Great Depression. There is also the general observation that democracy was very rare before the industrial revolution. Empirical research thus led many to believe that economic development either increases chances for a transition to democracy, or helps newly established democracies consolidate.<ref name="przeworski" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rice|first1=Tom W.|last2=Ling|first2=Jeffrey|date=2002-12-01|title=Democracy, Economic Wealth and Social Capital: Sorting Out the Causal Connections |journal=Space and Polity|volume=6|issue=3|pages=307–325|doi=10.1080/1356257022000031995|s2cid=144947268|issn=1356-2576}}</ref> One study finds that economic development prompts democratization but only in the medium run (10–20 years). This is because development may entrench the incumbent leader but make it more difficult for him deliver the state to a son or trusted aide when he exits.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Income, Democracy, and Leader Turnover|journal = American Journal of Political Science|date = 2015-10-01|issn = 1540-5907|pages = 927–942|volume = 59|issue = 4|doi = 10.1111/ajps.12135|language = en|first = Daniel|last = Treisman| s2cid=154067095 |url = https://zenodo.org/record/895598}}</ref> However, the debate about whether democracy is a consequence of wealth, a cause of it, or both processes are unrelated, is far from conclusive.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Traversa | first1 = Federico | year = 2014 | title = Income and the stability of democracy: Pushing beyond the borders of logic to explain a strong correlation? | journal = Constitutional Political Economy | volume = 26| issue = 2| pages = 121–136| doi = 10.1007/s10602-014-9175-x | s2cid = 154420163 }}</ref> Another study suggests that economic development depends on the political stability of a country to promote democracy.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=FENG|first1=YI|title=Democracy, Political Stability and Economic Growth|journal=British Journal of Political Science|date=July 1997|volume=27|issue=3|pages=416, 391–418|doi=10.1017/S0007123497000197|s2cid=154749945 }}</ref> Clark, Robert and Golder, in their reformulation of Albert Hirschman's model of ''Exit, Voice and Loyalty'', explain how it is not the increase of wealth in a country ''per se'' which influences a democratization process, but rather the changes in the socio-economic structures that come together with the increase of wealth. They explain how these structure changes have been called out to be one of the main reasons several European countries became democratic. When their socioeconomic structures shifted because modernization made the agriculture sector more efficient, bigger investments of time and resources were used for the manufacture and service sectors. In England, for example, members of the gentry began investing more in commercial activities that allowed them to become economically more important for the state. This new kind of productive activities came with new economic power were assets became more difficult for the state to count and hence more difficult to tax. Because of this, predation was no longer possible and the state had to negotiate with the new economic elites to extract revenue. A sustainable bargain had to be reached because the state became more dependent of its citizens remaining loyal and, with this, citizens had now leverage to be taken into account in the decision making process for the country.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=William Roberts |first2=Matt |last2=Golder |first3=Sona N. |last3=Golder |year=2013 |title=Power and politics: insights from an exit, voice, and loyalty game |journal=Unpublished Manuscript |url=https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pegroup/files/clark_golder.pdf }}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=April 2018}}<ref>"Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. Retrieved 7 April 2015.[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm "Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. Retrieved 7 April 2015.]</ref>

[[Adam Przeworski]] and [[Fernando Limongi]] argue that while economic development makes democracies less likely to turn authoritarian, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that development causes democratization (turning an authoritarian state into a democracy).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Przeworski|first1=Adam|last2=Limongi|first2=Fernando|date=1997|title=Modernization: Theories and Facts|journal=World Politics|volume=49|issue=2|pages=155–183|issn=0043-8871|jstor=25053996|doi=10.1353/wp.1997.0004|s2cid=5981579}}</ref> Economic development can boost public support for authoritarian regimes in the short-to-medium term.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/voting-for-autocracy/F6671D230EC7C458A30035ADB20F9289|title=Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico|last=Magaloni|first=Beatriz|date=September 2006|publisher=Cambridge Core|doi=10.1017/CBO9780511510274 |isbn=9780521862479 |language=en|access-date=2019-12-17}}</ref> [[Andrew J. Nathan]] argues that China is a problematic case for the thesis that economic development causes democratization.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-puzzle-of-the-chinese-middle-class/|title=The Puzzle of the Chinese Middle Class|website=Journal of Democracy|language=en-US|access-date=2019-12-22}}</ref> Michael Miller finds that development increases the likelihood of "democratization in regimes that are fragile and unstable, but makes this fragility less likely to begin with."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Miller|first=Michael K.|date=2012|title=Economic Development, Violent Leader Removal, and Democratization|journal=American Journal of Political Science|language=en|volume=56|issue=4|pages=1002–1020|doi=10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00595.x}}</ref>

There is research to suggest that greater urbanization, through various pathways, contributes to democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Glaeser|first1=Edward L.|last2=Steinberg|first2=Bryce Millett|date=2017|title=Transforming Cities: Does Urbanization Promote Democratic Change?|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w22860.pdf|journal=Regional Studies|volume=51|issue=1|pages=58–68|doi=10.1080/00343404.2016.1262020|bibcode=2017RegSt..51...58G |s2cid=157638952}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barceló|first1=Joan|last2=Rosas|first2=Guillermo|date=2020|title=Endogenous democracy: causal evidence from the potato productivity shock in the old world|journal=Political Science Research and Methods|volume=9|issue=3|language=en|pages=650–657|doi=10.1017/psrm.2019.62|issn=2049-8470|doi-access=free}}</ref> 

Numerous scholars and political thinkers have linked a large [[middle class]] to the emergence and sustenance of democracy,<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/|title=Aristotle: Politics {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|website=www.iep.utm.edu|access-date=2020-02-03}}</ref> whereas others have challenged this relationship.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rosenfeld|first=Bryn|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jbjtDwAAQBAJ|title=The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy|date=2020|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-20977-7|language=en}}</ref>

In "Non-Modernization" (2022), [[Daron Acemoglu]] and [[James A. Robinson (economist)|James A. Robinson]] argue that modernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development "because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an 'end of history'."<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/epdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913 | doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913 | title=Non-Modernization: Power–Culture Trajectories and the Dynamics of Political Institutions | year=2022 | last1=Acemoglu | first1=Daron | last2=Robinson | first2=James | journal=Annual Review of Political Science | volume=25 | pages=323–339 | hdl=1721.1/144425 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>

A meta-analysis by [[Gerardo L. Munck]] of research on Lipset's argument shows that a majority of studies do not support the thesis that higher levels of economic development leads to more democracy.<ref>Gerardo L.Munck, "Modernization Theory as a Case of Failed Knowledge Production." ''The Annals of Comparative Democratization'' 16, 3 (2018): 37–41. [https://mk0apsaconnectbvy6p6.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/2018_16_3-Annals_of_CD_September.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190813130345/https://mk0apsaconnectbvy6p6.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/2018_16_3-Annals_of_CD_September.pdf|date=2019-08-13}}</ref>

A 2024 study linked industrialization to democratization, arguing that large-scale employment in manufacturing made mass mobilization easier to occur and harder to repress.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Van Noort |first=Sam |date=2024 |title=Industrialization and Democracy |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/933069 |journal=World Politics |volume=76 |issue=3 |pages=457–498 |issn=1086-3338}}</ref>

====Capital Mobility====
Theories on causes to democratization such as economic development focus rather on the aspect of gaining capital, capital mobility focuses on the movement of money and the across borders of countries and different financial instruments and the corresponding restrictions. Over the past decades they have been multiple theories as to what the relationship is between capital mobility and democratization.<ref>FREEMAN, J. R., & QUINN, D. P. (2012). The Economic Origins of Democracy Reconsidered. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 58–80. doi:10.1017/S0003055411000505</ref>

The “doomsway view” is that capital mobility is an inherent threat to underdeveloped democracies by worsening the economic inequalities and favoring the interests of powerful elites and external actors over broader societal, which might lead to depending on money from outside, therefore affected by the economic situation in other countries. [[Sylvia Maxfield]] argues that a bigger demand for transparency in both the private and public sectors by some investors can contribute to a strengthening of democratic institutions and can encourage democratic consolidation.<ref>Maxfield, S. (2000). Capital Mobility and Democratic Stability. Journal of Democracy 11(4), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2000.0080.</ref>

A 2016 study found that [[Preferential trading area|preferential trade agreements]] can increase democratization of a country, especially in case of trade with other democracies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Manger|first1=Mark S.|last2=Pickup|first2=Mark A.|date=2016-02-01|title=The Coevolution of Trade Agreement Networks and Democracy|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|language=en|volume=60|issue=1|pages=164–191|doi=10.1177/0022002714535431|s2cid=154493227|issn=0022-0027}}</ref> A 2020 study found increased trade between democracies reduces [[democratic backsliding]], while trade between democracies and autocracies reduces democratization of the autocracies.<ref name="a964">{{cite journal | last=Pronin | first=Pavel | title=International Trade And Democracy: How Trade Partners Affect Regime Change And Persistence | journal=SSRN Electronic Journal | publisher=Elsevier BV | year=2020 | issn=1556-5068 | doi=10.2139/ssrn.3717614 | page=}}</ref> Trade and capital mobility often involve international organizations, such as the [[International Money Fund]] (IMF), [[World Bank]], and [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO), which can condition financial assistance or trade agreements on democratic reforms.<ref>Chwieroth, J. M. (2010). Capital Ideas: The IMF and the Rise of Financial Liberalization. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sbnq</ref>

==== Classes, cleavages and alliances  ====
[[File:Reeve and Serfs.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Theorists such as Barrington Moore Jr. argued that the roots of democratization could be found in the relationship between lords and peasants in agrarian societies.]]
Sociologist [[Barrington Moore Jr.]], in his influential [[Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy]] (1966), argues that the distribution of power among classes – the peasantry, the bourgeoise and the landed aristocracy – and the nature of alliances between classes determined whether democratic, authoritarian or communist revolutions occurred.<ref>{{cite book|title=Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world|last=Moore|first=Barrington Jr.|publisher=[[Beacon Press]]|year=1993|isbn=978-0-8070-5073-6|edition=with a new foreword by Edward Friedman and James C. Scott|location=Boston|page=430|author-link=Barrington Moore, Jr.|orig-date=1966}}</ref> Moore also argued there were at least "three routes to the modern world" – the liberal democratic, the fascist, and the communist – each deriving from the timing of industrialization and the social structure at the time of transition. Thus, Moore challenged modernization theory, by stressing that there was not one path to the modern world and that economic development did not always bring about democracy.<ref>Jørgen Møller, ''State Formation, Regime Change, and Economic Development''. London: Routledge Press, 2017, Ch. 6.</ref>

Many authors have questioned parts of Moore's arguments. Dietrich Rueschemeyer, [[Evelyne Huber|Evelyne Stephens]], and John D. Stephens, in ''Capitalist Development and Democracy'' (1992), raise questions about Moore's analysis of the role of the bourgeoisie in democratization.<ref>Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. ''Capitalist Development and Democracy.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> Eva Bellin argues that under certain circumstances, the bourgeoise and labor are more likely to favor democratization, but less so under other circumstances.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bellin|first=Eva|date=January 2000|title=Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late-Developing Countries|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=52|issue=2|pages=175–205|doi=10.1017/S0043887100002598|s2cid=54044493|issn=1086-3338}}</ref> Samuel Valenzuela argues that, counter to Moore's view, the landed elite supported democratization in Chile.<ref>J. Samuel Valenzuela, 2001. "Class Relations and Democratization: A Reassessment of Barrington Moore's Model", pp. 240–86, in Miguel Angel Centeno and Fernando López-Alves (eds.), The Other Mirror: Grand Theory Through the Lens of Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.</ref> A comprehensive assessment conducted by James Mahoney concludes that "Moore's specific hypotheses about democracy and authoritarianism receive only limited and highly conditional support."<ref>James Mahoney, "Knowledge Accumulation in Comparative Historical Research: The Case of Democracy and Authoritarianism," pp. 131–74, in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), ''Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences.'' New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 145. For an earlier review of a wide range of critical response to ''Social Origins'', see Jon Wiener, "Review of Reviews: ''Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy''", ''History and Theory'' 15 (1976), 146–75.</ref>

A 2020 study linked democratization to the [[Mechanised agriculture|mechanization of agriculture]]: as landed elites became less reliant on the repression of agricultural workers, they became less hostile to democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Samuels|first1=David J.|last2=Thomson|first2=Henry|date=2020|title=Lord, Peasant … and Tractor? Agricultural Mechanization, Moore's Thesis, and the Emergence of Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/lord-peasant-and-tractor-agricultural-mechanization-moores-thesis-and-the-emergence-of-democracy/0D322FCC606F75D44D9446358F3B9690/share/fa7c5e053c9936ef179231a40604b88d8eac9957|journal=Perspectives on Politics|volume=19|issue=3|language=en|pages=739–753|doi=10.1017/S1537592720002303|s2cid=225466533|issn=1537-5927}}</ref>

According to political scientist [[David Stasavage]], representative government is "more likely to occur when a society is divided across multiple political cleavages."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/public-debt-and-the-birth-of-the-democratic-state/9995D18B9CC015BA69C37133E44DDE23|title=Public Debt and the Birth of the Democratic State: France and Great Britain 1688–1789|author1-link=David Stasavage|last=Stasavage|first=David|date=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511510557|access-date=2019-12-24|isbn=9780521809672}}</ref> A 2021 study found that constitutions that emerge through pluralism (reflecting distinct segments of society) are more likely to induce liberal democracy (at least, in the short term).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Negretto|first1=Gabriel L.|last2=Sánchez-Talanquer|first2=Mariano|date=2021|title=Constitutional Origins and Liberal Democracy: A Global Analysis, 1900–2015|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/constitutional-origins-and-liberal-democracy-a-global-analysis-19002015/AD138F031B07119CBEF099B8879FB888|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=115|issue=2|pages=522–536|doi=10.1017/S0003055420001069|s2cid=232422425|issn=0003-0554|via=}}</ref>

=== Political-economic factors ===
==== Rulers' need for taxation ====
[[Robert Bates (political scientist)|Robert Bates]] and Donald Lien, as well as David Stasavage, have argued that rulers' need for taxes gave asset-owning elites the bargaining power to demand a say on public policy, thus giving rise to democratic institutions.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Bates|first1=Robert H.|last2=Donald Lien|first2=Da-Hsiang|date=March 1985|title=A Note on Taxation, Development, and Representative Government|journal=Politics & Society|language=en-US|volume=14|issue=1|pages=53–70|doi=10.1177/003232928501400102|s2cid=154910942|issn=0032-3292|url=https://authors.library.caltech.edu/81503/1/sswp567.pdf}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Stasavage|first=David|date=2016-05-11|title=Representation and Consent: Why They Arose in Europe and Not Elsewhere|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=19|issue=1|pages=145–162|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-043014-105648| doi-access=free | issn=1094-2939}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite book|last=Stasavage, David|title=Decline and rise of democracy: a global history from antiquity to today|date=2020|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-17746-5|oclc=1125969950}}</ref> [[Montesquieu]] argued that the mobility of commerce meant that rulers had to bargain with merchants in order to tax them, otherwise they would leave the country or hide their commercial activities.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30312|title=Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village|last=Deudney|first=Daniel H.|date=2010|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-3727-4|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":3" /> Stasavage argues that the small size and backwardness of European states, as well as the weakness of European rulers, after the fall of the Roman Empire meant that European rulers had to obtain consent from their population to govern effectively.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":5" />

According to Clark, Golder, and Golder, an application of  [[Albert O. Hirschman]]'s exit, voice, and loyalty model is that if individuals have plausible exit options, then a government may be more likely to democratize. [[James C. Scott]] argues that governments may find it difficult to claim a sovereignty over a population when that population is in motion.<ref name="C. 2010 7">{{Cite book|last=Scott |first=James C. |url=https://archive.org/details/artofnotbeinggov0000scot/page/7 |title=The Art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia|date=2010|publisher=NUS Press|isbn=9780300152289|pages=[https://archive.org/details/artofnotbeinggov0000scot/page/7 7]|oclc=872296825}}</ref> Scott additionally asserts that exit may not solely include physical exit from the territory of a coercive state, but can include a number of adaptive responses to coercion that make it more difficult for states to claim sovereignty over a population. These responses can include planting crops that are more difficult for states to count, or tending livestock that are more mobile. In fact, the entire political arrangement of a state is a result of individuals adapting to the environment, and making a choice as to whether or not to stay in a territory.<ref name="C. 2010 7" /> If people are free to move, then the exit, voice, and loyalty model predicts that a state will have to be of that population representative, and appease the populace in order to prevent them from leaving.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Power and politics: insights from an exit, voice, and loyalty game.|url=http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pegroup/files/clark_golder.pdf}}</ref> If individuals have plausible exit options then they are better able to constrain a government's arbitrary behaviour through threat of exit.<ref name=":1" />

==== Inequality and democracy ====
Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argued that the relationship between [[social equality]] and democratic transition is complicated: People have less incentive to revolt in an egalitarian society (for example, [[Singapore]]), so the likelihood of democratization is lower. In a highly unequal society (for example, [[South Africa]] under [[Apartheid]]), the [[redistribution of wealth]] and power in a democracy would be so harmful to elites that these would do everything to prevent democratization. Democratization is more likely to emerge somewhere in the middle, in the countries, whose elites offer concessions because (1) they consider the threat of a revolution credible and (2) the cost of the concessions is not too high.<ref name="acemoglu">{{cite book | last = Acemoglu | first = Daron |author2=James A. Robinson | title = Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2006 | location = Cambridge}}</ref> This expectation is in line with the empirical research showing that democracy is more stable in egalitarian societies.<ref name="przeworski" />

Other approaches to the relationship between inequality and democracy have been presented by [[Carles Boix]], [[Stephan Haggard]] and Robert Kaufman, and [[Ben Ansell]] and [[David Samuels (political scientist)|David Samuels]].<ref>Special issue on "Inequality and Democratization: What Do We Know?"''American Political Science Association. Comparative Democratization'' 11(3)2013.</ref><ref name="krauss">[https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1069372 Krauss, Alexander. "The scientific limits of understanding the (potential) relationship between complex social phenomena: the case of democracy and inequality." Journal of Economic Methodology 23.1 (2016): 97–109.]</ref>

In their 2019 book ''The Narrow Corridor'' and a 2022 study in the ''American Political Science Review'', Acemoglu and Robinson argue that the nature of the relationship between elites and society determine whether stable democracy emerges. When elites are overly dominant, despotic states emerge. When society is overly dominant, weak states emerge. When elites and society are evenly balance, inclusive states emerge.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Acemoglu |first1=Daron |last2=Robinson |first2=James A. |date=2022 |title=Weak, Despotic, or Inclusive? How State Type Emerges from State versus Civil Society Competition |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/weak-despotic-or-inclusive-how-state-type-emerges-from-state-versus-civil-society-competition/FD2C89941F15250D52076EE53F82C013 |journal=American Political Science Review |volume=117 |issue=2 |pages=407–420 |language=en |doi=10.1017/S0003055422000740 |s2cid=251607252 |issn=0003-0554}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Acemoglu |first1=Daron |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kTeUwgEACAAJ |title=The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty |last2=Robinson |first2=James A. |date=2019 |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=978-0-241-31431-9 |language=en}}</ref>

==== Natural resources ====
[[File:Oil well.jpg|thumb|The abundance of oil is sometimes seen as a curse.]]
Research shows that oil wealth lowers levels of democracy and strengthens autocratic rule.<ref name="Ross 2001">{{cite journal|last1=Ross|first1=Michael L.|date=13 June 2011|title=Does Oil Hinder Democracy?|journal=World Politics|volume=53|issue=3|pages=325–361|doi=10.1353/wp.2001.0011|s2cid=18404}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wright|first1=Joseph|last2=Frantz|first2=Erica|last3=Geddes|first3=Barbara|s2cid=988090|author-link3=Barbara Geddes (academic)|date=2015-04-01|title=Oil and Autocratic Regime Survival|journal=British Journal of Political Science|volume=45|issue=2|pages=287–306|doi=10.1017/S0007123413000252|issn=1469-2112}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Jensen|first1=Nathan|last2=Wantchekon|first2=Leonard|date=2004-09-01|title=Resource Wealth and Political Regimes in Africa|url=http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/wantchekon/research/regimes.pdf|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=37|issue=7|pages=816–841|citeseerx=10.1.1.607.9710|doi=10.1177/0010414004266867|s2cid=154999593|issn=0010-4140}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ulfelder|first=Jay|date=2007-08-01|title=Natural-Resource Wealth and the Survival of Autocracy|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=40|issue=8|pages=995–1018|doi=10.1177/0010414006287238|s2cid=154316752|issn=0010-4140}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Basedau|first1=Matthias|last2=Lay|first2=Jann|date=2009-11-01|title=Resource Curse or Rentier Peace? The Ambiguous Effects of Oil Wealth and Oil Dependence on Violent Conflict|url=https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/36912/1/ssoar-jpeaceresearch-2009-6-basedau_et_al-Resource_curse_or_rentier_peace.pdf|journal=Journal of Peace Research|volume=46|issue=6|pages=757–776|doi=10.1177/0022343309340500|s2cid=144798465|issn=0022-3433}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Andersen|first1=Jørgen J.|last2=Ross|first2=Michael L.|date=2014-06-01|title=The Big Oil Change A Closer Look at the Haber–Menaldo Analysis|url=https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/195819/Andersen_CPS_2014.pdf?sequence=1|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180723095213/https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/195819/Andersen_CPS_2014.pdf?sequence=1|archive-date=2018-07-23|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=47|issue=7|pages=993–1021|doi=10.1177/0010414013488557|issn=0010-4140|hdl=11250/195819|s2cid=154653329}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Girod|first1=Desha M.|last2=Stewart|first2=Megan A.|last3=Walters|first3=Meir R.|date=2016-07-27|title=Mass protests and the resource curse: The politics of demobilization in rentier autocracies|journal=Conflict Management and Peace Science|volume=35|issue=5|pages=503–522|doi=10.1177/0738894216651826|s2cid=157573005|issn=0738-8942}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wright|first1=Joseph|last2=Frantz|first2=Erica|date=2017-07-01|title=How oil income and missing hydrocarbon rents data influence autocratic survival: A response to Lucas and Richter (2016)|journal=Research & Politics|volume=4|issue=3|pages=2053168017719794|doi=10.1177/2053168017719794|issn=2053-1680|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Wigley|first=Simon|date=December 2018|title=Is There a Resource Curse for Private Liberties?|journal=International Studies Quarterly|volume=62|issue=4|pages=834–844|doi=10.1093/isq/sqy031|hdl=11693/48786|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cassidy|first=Traviss|year=2019|title=The Long-Run Effects of Oil Wealth on Development: Evidence from Petroleum Geology|journal=The Economic Journal|volume=129|issue=623|pages=2745–2778|doi=10.1093/ej/uez009|url=https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/97778/1/MPRA_paper_97777.pdf}}</ref> According to Michael Ross, [[petroleum]] is the sole resource that has "been consistently correlated with less democracy and worse institutions" and is the "key variable in the vast majority of the studies" identifying some type of [[resource curse]] effect.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Ross|first=Michael L.|s2cid=154308471|date=May 2015|title=What Have We Learned about the Resource Curse?|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=18|pages=239–259|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-052213-040359|doi-access=free}}</ref> A 2014 meta-analysis confirms the negative impact of oil wealth on democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ahmadov|first=Anar K.|date=2014-08-01|title=Oil, Democracy, and Context A Meta-Analysis|journal=Comparative Political Studies|language=en|volume=47|issue=9|pages=1238–1267|doi=10.1177/0010414013495358|s2cid=154661151|issn=0010-4140}}</ref>

Thad Dunning proposes a plausible explanation for Ecuador's return to democracy that contradicts the conventional wisdom that natural resource rents encourage authoritarian governments. Dunning proposes that there are situations where natural resource rents, such as those acquired through oil, reduce the risk of distributive or social policies to the elite because the state has other sources of revenue to finance this kind of policies that is not the elite wealth or income.<ref>Thad Dunning. 2008. ''Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes''. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1.Pp. 3.</ref> And in countries plagued with high inequality, which was the case of Ecuador in the 1970s, the result would be a higher likelihood of democratization.<ref>Thad Dunning. 2008. ''Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes''. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1, p. 21.</ref> In 1972, the military coup had overthrown the government in large part because of the fears of elites that redistribution would take place.<ref name="Thad Dunning 2008. Pp. 34">Thad Dunning. 2008. ''Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes''. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1, p. 34.</ref> That same year oil became an increasing financial source for the country.<ref name="Thad Dunning 2008. Pp. 34" /> Although the rents were used to finance the military, the eventual second oil boom of 1979 ran parallel to the country's re-democratization.<ref name="Thad Dunning 2008. Pp. 34" /> Ecuador's re-democratization can then be attributed, as argued by Dunning, to the large increase of oil rents, which enabled not only a surge in public spending but placated the fears of redistribution that had grappled the elite circles.<ref name="Thad Dunning 2008. Pp. 34" /> The exploitation of Ecuador's resource rent enabled the government to implement price and wage policies that benefited citizens at no cost to the elite and allowed for a smooth transition and growth of democratic institutions.<ref name="Thad Dunning 2008. Pp. 34" />

The thesis that oil and other natural resources have a negative impact on democracy has been challenged by historian [[Stephen Haber]] and political scientist Victor Menaldo in a widely cited article in the ''American Political Science Review'' (2011). Haber and Menaldo argue that "natural resource reliance is not an exogenous variable" and find that when tests of the relationship between natural resources and democracy take this point into account "increases in resource reliance are not associated with authoritarianism."<ref>Stephen Haber and Victor Menaldo, "Do Natural Resources Fuel Authoritarianism? A Reappraisal of the Resource Curse," ''American Political Science Review'' 105(1) 2011: 1–26.</ref>

=== Cultural factors ===
==== Values and religion ====
It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conducive to democratic values than others. This view is likely to be [[Ethnocentrism|ethnocentric]]. Typically, it is [[Western culture]] which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms. Today, however, there are many non-Western democracies. Examples include: India, Japan, Indonesia, Namibia, Botswana, Taiwan, and South Korea. Research finds that "Western-educated leaders significantly and substantively improve a country's democratization prospects".<ref>{{Cite journal |title = Who Democratizes? Western-educated Leaders and Regime Transitions|last1 = Gift|first1 = Thomas|last2 = Krcmaric|first2 = Daniel|year = 2015 |journal = Journal of Conflict Resolution |volume = 61|issue = 3|pages = 671–701|doi = 10.1177/0022002715590878|s2cid = 156073540}}</ref>

Huntington presented an influential, but also controversial arguments about Confucianism and Islam. Huntington held that that "In practice Confucian or Confucian-influenced societies have been inhospitable to democracy."<ref>Huntington, Samuel P. "Democracy's Third Wave." ''Journal of Democracy'' 2(2)(1991): 12–34, p. 24. [https://www.ned.org/docs/Samuel-P-Huntington-Democracy-Third-Wave.pdf]</ref> He also held that "Islamic doctrine ... contains elements that may be both congenial and uncongenial to democracy," but generally thought that Islam was an obstacle to democratization.<ref>Huntington, Samuel P. "Democracy's Third Wave." ''Journal of Democracy'' 2(2)(1991): 12–34, p. 24.</ref> In contrast, [[Alfred Stepan]] was more optimistic about the compatibility of different religions and democracy.<ref>Stepan, Alfred C. "Religion, Democracy, and the "Twin Tolerations"." ''Journal of Democracy'' 11(4) 2000: 37–57.</ref>

[[File:Masjid al-Qiblatain.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|The compatibility of Islam and democracy continues to be a focus of discussion; the image depicts a mosque in Medina, Saudi Arabia.]]
[[Steven Fish]] and [[Robert Barro]] have linked Islam to undemocratic outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fish|first=M. Steven|date=October 2002|title=Islam and Authoritarianism|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=55|issue=1|pages=4–37|doi=10.1353/wp.2003.0004|s2cid=44555086|issn=1086-3338}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barro|first=Robert J.|date=1999-12-01|title=Determinants of Democracy|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=107|issue=S6|pages=S158–S183|doi=10.1086/250107|s2cid=216077816 |issn=0022-3808|url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3451297}}</ref> However, Michael Ross argues that the lack of democracies in some parts of the Muslim world has more to do with the adverse effects of the resource curse than Islam.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ross|first=Michael L.|date=February 2008|title=Oil, Islam, and Women|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=102|issue=1|pages=107–123|doi=10.1017/S0003055408080040|s2cid=54825180|issn=1537-5943}}</ref> Lisa Blaydes and Eric Chaney have linked the democratic divergence between the West and the Middle-East to the reliance on [[mamluk]]s (slave soldiers) by Muslim rulers whereas European rulers had to rely on local elites for military forces, thus giving those elites bargaining power to push for representative government.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Blaydes|first1=Lisa|last2=Chaney|first2=Eric|date=2013|title=The Feudal Revolution and Europe's Rise: Political Divergence of the Christian West and the Muslim World before 1500 CE|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=107|issue=1|pages=16–34|doi=10.1017/S0003055412000561|s2cid=33455840|issn=0003-0554}}</ref>

Robert Dahl argued, in ''On Democracy'', that countries with a "democratic political culture" were more prone for democratization and democratic survival.<ref name=":4" /> He also argued that cultural homogeneity and smallness contribute to democratic survival.<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/sizedemocracy0000dahl|url-access=registration|title=Size and Democracy|last1=Dahl|first1=Robert Alan|last2=Tufte|first2=Edward R.|date=1973|publisher=Stanford University Press|isbn=978-0-8047-0834-0|language=en}}</ref> Other scholars have however challenged the notion that small states and homogeneity strengthen democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Erk|first1=Jan|last2=Veenendaal|first2=Wouter|date=2014-07-14|title=Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/549504|journal=Journal of Democracy|language=en|volume=25|issue=3|pages=135–148|doi=10.1353/jod.2014.0054|s2cid=155086258|issn=1086-3214}}</ref>

A 2012 study found that areas in Africa with Protestant missionaries were more likely to become stable democracies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Woodberry|first=Robert D.|date=2012|title=The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=106|issue=2|pages=244–274|doi=10.1017/S0003055412000093|jstor=41495078|s2cid=54677100|issn=0003-0554}}</ref> A 2020 study failed to replicate those findings.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Nikolova|first1=Elena|last2=Polansky|first2=Jakub|date=2020|title=Conversionary Protestants Do Not Cause Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/conversionary-protestants-do-not-cause-democracy/89D4552E3CEED18F62E94E4ABEF322F6|journal=British Journal of Political Science|volume=51|issue=4|language=en|pages=1723–1733|doi=10.1017/S0007123420000174|hdl=10419/214629 |s2cid=234540943|issn=0007-1234|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

Sirianne Dahlum and Carl Henrik Knutsen offer a test of the Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel revised version of modernization theory, which focuses on cultural traits triggered by economic development that are presumed to be conducive to democratization.<ref>Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Dahlum, S., & Knutsen, C., "Democracy by Demand? Reinvestigating the Effect of Self-expression Values on Political Regime Type." ''British Journal of Political Science'' 47(2)(2017): 437–61.</ref> They find "no empirical support" for the Inglehart and  Welzel thesis and conclude that "self-expression values do not enhance democracy levels or democratization chances, and neither do they stabilize existing democracies."<ref>Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Dahlum, S., & Knutsen, C., "Democracy by Demand? Reinvestigating the Effect of Self-expression Values on Political Regime Type." ''British Journal of Political Science'' 47(2)(2017): 437–61, p 437</ref>

==== Education ====
It has long been theorized that education promotes stable and democratic societies.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Capitalism and Freedom|last = Friedman|first = Milton|year = 1962|pages = 86}}</ref> Research shows that education leads to greater political tolerance, increases the likelihood of political participation and reduces inequality.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|title = The democratizing effect of education |journal = Research & Politics|date = 2015-10-01|issn = 2053-1680|pages = 2053168015613360|volume = 2|issue = 4|doi = 10.1177/2053168015613360|language = en|first1 = Eduardo|last1 = Alemán|first2 = Yeaji|last2 = Kim|doi-access = free}}</ref> One study finds "that increases in levels of education improve levels of democracy and that the democratizing effect of education is more intense in poor countries".<ref name=":0" />

It is commonly claimed that democracy and democratization were important drivers of the expansion of primary education around the world. However, new evidence from historical education trends challenges this assertion. An analysis of historical student enrollment rates for 109 countries from 1820 to 2010 finds no support for the claim that democratization increased access to primary education around the world. It is true that transitions to democracy often coincided with an acceleration in the expansion of primary education, but the same acceleration was observed in countries that remained non-democratic.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Paglayan|first=Agustina S.|date=February 2021|title=The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=115|issue=1|pages=179–198|doi=10.1017/S0003055420000647|issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Wider adoption of [[voting advice application]]s can lead to increased education on politics and increased [[voter turnout]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237 | doi=10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237 | title=Getting Out the Vote with Voting Advice Applications | year=2019 | last1=Germann | first1=Micha | last2=Gemenis | first2=Kostas | journal=Political Communication | volume=36 | pages=149–170 | s2cid=149640396 }}</ref>

==== Social capital and civil society ====
[[File:CI boardwalk Sandy sweepers jeh.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|[[Civic engagement]], including [[volunteering]], is conducive to democratization. These volunteers are cleaning up after the 2012 [[Hurricane Sandy]].]]
[[Civil society]] refers to a collection of non-governmental organizations and institutions that advance the interests, priorities and will of citizens. [[Social capital]] refers to features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that allow individuals to act together to pursue shared objectives.<ref name=":9" />

[[Robert D. Putnam|Robert Putnam]] argues that certain characteristics make societies more likely to have cultures of civic engagement that lead to more participatory democracies. According to Putnam, communities with denser horizontal networks of [[Civic engagement|civic association]] are able to better build the "norms of trust, reciprocity, and civic engagement" that lead to democratization and well-functioning participatory democracies. By contrasting communities in Northern Italy, which had dense horizontal networks, to communities in Southern Italy, which had more vertical networks and [[Clientelism|patron-client relations]], Putnam asserts that the latter never built the culture of civic engagement that some deem as necessary for successful democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Putnam|first=Robert|date=March 1993|title=What makes democracy work?|journal=National Civic Review|volume=82|issue=2|pages=101–107|doi=10.1002/ncr.4100820204}}</ref>

[[Sheri Berman]] has rebutted Putnam's theory that civil society contributes to democratization, writing that in the case of the Weimar Republic, civil society facilitated the rise of the Nazi Party.<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal|last=Berman|first=Sheri|author-link=Sheri Berman|date=1997|title=Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=49|issue=3|pages=401–429|doi=10.1353/wp.1997.0008|s2cid=145285276|issn=1086-3338}}</ref> According to Berman, Germany's democratization after World War I allowed for a renewed development in the country's civil society; however, Berman argues that this vibrant civil society eventually weakened democracy within Germany as it exacerbated existing social divisions due to the creation of exclusionary community organizations.<ref name=":14" /> Subsequent empirical research and theoretical analysis has lent support for Berman's argument.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Satyanath|first1=Shanker|last2=Voigtländer|first2=Nico|last3=Voth|first3=Hans-Joachim|date=2017-04-01|title=Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=125|issue=2|pages=478–526|doi=10.1086/690949|s2cid=3827369|issn=0022-3808|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w19201.pdf}}</ref> Yale University political scientist Daniel Mattingly argues civil society in China helps the authoritarian regime in China to cement control.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/art-of-political-control-in-china/4FE177A409064E67DBB3D5A08081F80A|title=The Art of Political Control in China|last=Mattingly|first=Daniel C.|date=2019|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en|doi=10.1017/9781108662536|isbn=9781108662536|s2cid=213618572|access-date=2020-02-06}}</ref> Clark, M. Golder, and S. Golder also argue that despite many believing democratization requires a [[Civic political culture|civic culture]], empirical evidence produced by several reanalyses of past studies suggest this claim is only partially supported.<ref name=":12" /> [[Philippe C. Schmitter]] also asserts that the existence of civil society is not a prerequisite for the transition to democracy, but rather democratization is usually followed by the resurrection of civil society (even if it did not exist previously).<ref name=":13" />

Research indicates that democracy protests are associated with democratization. According to a study by Freedom House, in 67 countries where dictatorships have fallen since 1972, nonviolent civic resistance was a strong influence over 70 percent of the time. In these transitions, changes were catalyzed not through foreign invasion, and only rarely through armed revolt or voluntary elite-driven reforms, but overwhelmingly by democratic civil society organizations utilizing nonviolent action and other forms of civil resistance, such as strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=275 |title=Study: Nonviolent Civic Resistance Key Factor in Building Durable Democracies, May 24, 2005  |access-date=June 18, 2009 |archive-date=December 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111223135218/http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=275 }}</ref> A 2016 study found that about a quarter of all cases of democracy protests between 1989 and 2011 lead to democratization.<ref name="brancati">{{cite book|last=Brancati|first=Dawn|title=Democracy Protests: Origins, Features and Significance|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|location=Cambridge}}</ref>

=== Theories based on political agents and choices ===
==== Elite-opposition negotiations and contingency ====
Scholars such as [[Dankwart Rustow|Dankwart A. Rustow]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rustow|first=Dankwart A.|date=1970|title=Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model|journal=Comparative Politics|volume=2|issue=3|pages=337–363|doi=10.2307/421307|issn=0010-4159|jstor=421307|url=http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/1130-2887/article/view/alh201468139168}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/transitionstodem0000unse|title=Transitions to Democracy|date=1999|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-50247-4|editor-last=Anderson|editor-first=Lisa|url-access=registration}}</ref> and [[Guillermo O'Donnell]] and [[Philippe C. Schmitter]] in their classic ''Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies'' (1986),<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/transitions-authoritarian-rule-2|title=Transitions from Authoritarian Rule |date=September 1986 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|doi=10.56021/9780801831904 |isbn=9780801831904 |access-date=2019-12-23 |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Guillermo }}</ref> argued against the notion that there are structural "big" causes of democratization. These scholars instead emphasize how the democratization process occurs in a more contingent  manner that depends on the  characteristics and circumstances of the elites who ultimately oversee the shift from authoritarianism to democracy.

O'Donnell and Schmitter proposed a strategic choice approach to transitions to democracy that highlighted how they were driven by the decisions of different actors in response to a core set of dilemmas. The analysis centered on the interaction among four actors: the hard-liners and soft-liners who belonged to the incumbent authoritarian regime, and the moderate and radical oppositions against the regime. This book not only became the point of reference for a burgeoning academic literature on [[democratic transitions]], it was also read widely by political activists engaged in actual struggles to achieve democracy.<ref>Gerardo L. Munck, "Democratic Theory After ''Transitions From Authoritarian Rule''," ''Perspectives on Politics'' Vol. 9, Nº 2 (2011): 333–43.</ref>

Adam Przeworski, in ''Democracy and the Market'' (1991), offered the first analysis of the interaction between rulers and opposition in transitions to democracy using rudimentary [[game theory]]. and he emphasizes the interdependence of political and economic transformations.<ref>Adam Przeworski, ''Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, Ch. 2.</ref>

==== Elite-driven democratization ====
Scholars have argued that processes of democratization may be elite-driven or driven by the authoritarian incumbents as a way for those elites to retain power amid popular demands for representative government.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authoritarianism-and-the-elite-origins-of-democracy/29C0246C5474CBC5184B2967AD4206ED|title=Authoritarianism and the Elite Origins of Democracy|last1=Albertus|first1=Michael|last2=Menaldo|first2=Victor|date=2018|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108185950 |isbn=9781108185950 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Konieczny|first1=Piotr|last2=Markoff|first2=John|date=2015|title=Poland's Contentious Elites Enter the Age of Revolution: Extending Social Movement Concepts|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/socf.12163|journal=Sociological Forum|language=en|volume=30|issue=2|pages=286–304|doi=10.1111/socf.12163|issn=1573-7861}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kavasoglu|first=Berker|date=2021-01-05|title=Autocratic ruling parties during regime transitions: Investigating the democratizing effect of strong ruling parties|journal=Party Politics|volume=28 |issue=2 |language=en|pages=377–388|doi=10.1177/1354068820985280|issn=1354-0688|doi-access=free|hdl=2077/64598|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite book|last1=Slater|first1=Dan|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167602/from-development-to-democracy|title=From Development to Democracy|last2=Wong|first2=Joseph|date=2022|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-16760-2|language=en}}</ref> If the costs of repression are higher than the costs of giving away power, authoritarians may opt for democratization and inclusive institutions.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Acemoglu|first1=Daron|title=Democracy, Redistribution, and Inequality|date=2015|work=Handbook of Income Distribution|volume=2|pages=1885–1966|publisher=Elsevier|language=en|doi=10.1016/b978-0-444-59429-7.00022-4|isbn=978-0-444-59430-3|last2=Naidu|first2=Suresh|last3=Restrepo|first3=Pascual|last4=Robinson|first4=James A.|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w19746.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Boix|first1=Carles|last2=Stokes|first2=Susan C.|date=2003|title=Endogenous Democratization|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=55|issue=4|pages=517–549|doi=10.1353/wp.2003.0019|s2cid=18745191|issn=0043-8871}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite book|last=Miller|first=Michael K.|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691217000/shock-to-the-system|title=Shock to the System|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2021|isbn=978-0-691-21700-0|language=en}}</ref> According to a 2020 study, authoritarian-led democratization is more likely to lead to lasting democracy in cases when the party strength of the authoritarian incumbent is high.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Riedl|first1=Rachel Beatty|last2=Slater|first2=Dan|last3=Wong|first3=Joseph|last4=Ziblatt|first4=Daniel|date=2020-03-04|title=Authoritarian-Led Democratization|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=23|pages=315–332|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-052318-025732|issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free}}</ref> However,  Michael Albertus and Victor Menaldo argue that democratizing rules implemented by outgoing authoritarians may distort democracy in favor of the outgoing authoritarian regime and its supporters, resulting in "bad" institutions that are hard to get rid of.<ref>{{Cite book |chapter=The Stickiness of "Bad" Institutions: Constitutional Continuity and Change under Democracy |chapter-url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/politics-of-institutional-weakness-in-latin-america/stickiness-of-bad-institutions/335EE2ABF4CF956FEF8059B628DB96F0 |last1=Albertus |first1=Michael |last2=Menaldo|first2=Victor |date=2020 |title=The Politics of Institutional Weakness in Latin America |editor=Daniel M. Brinks |editor2=Steven Levitsky |editor3=María Victoria Murillo |language=en|doi=10.1017/9781108776608.003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=61–97|isbn=9781108776608|s2cid=219476337}}</ref> According to Michael K. Miller, elite-driven democratization is particularly likely in the wake of major violent shocks (either domestic or international) which provide openings to opposition actors to the authoritarian regime.<ref name=":7" /> Dan Slater and Joseph Wong argue that dictators in Asia chose to implement democratic reforms when they were in positions of strength in order to retain and revitalize their power.<ref name=":8" />

According to a study by political scientist Daniel Treisman, influential theories of democratization posit that autocrats "deliberately choose to share or surrender power. They do so to prevent revolution, motivate citizens to fight wars, incentivize governments to provide [[Public good (economics)|public goods]], outbid elite rivals, or limit factional violence." His study shows that in many cases, "democratization occurred not because incumbent elites chose it but because, in trying to prevent it, they made mistakes that weakened their hold on power. Common mistakes include: calling elections or starting military conflicts, only to lose them; ignoring popular unrest and being overthrown; initiating limited reforms that get out of hand; and selecting a covert democrat as leader. These mistakes reflect well-known cognitive biases such as [[Overconfidence effect|overconfidence]] and the [[illusion of control]]."<ref>{{Cite journal|author1-link=Daniel Treisman|last=Treisman|first=Daniel|date=October 2017|title=Democracy by mistake|journal=NBER Working Paper No. 23944|doi=10.3386/w23944|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Sharun Mukand and [[Dani Rodrik]] dispute that elite-driven democratization produce liberal democracy. They argue that low levels of inequality and weak identity cleavages are necessary for liberal democracy to emerge.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mukand|first1=Sharun W.|last2=Rodrik|first2=Dani|title=The Political Economy of Liberal Democracy|journal=The Economic Journal|year=2020|volume=130|issue=627|pages=765–792|language=en|doi=10.1093/ej/ueaa004|doi-access=free|hdl=10419/161872|hdl-access=free}}</ref> A 2020 study by several political scientists from German universities found that democratization through bottom-up peaceful protests led to higher levels of democracy and democratic stability than democratization prompted by elites.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Lambach|first1=Daniel|url=https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030393700|title=Nonviolent Resistance and Democratic Consolidation|last2=Bayer|first2=Markus|last3=Bethke|first3=Felix S.|last4=Dressler|first4=Matteo|last5=Dudouet|first5=Véronique|date=2020|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3-030-39370-0|language=en}}</ref>

The three dictatorship types, monarchy, civilian and military have different approaches to democratization as a result of their individual goals. Monarchic and civilian dictatorships seek to remain in power indefinitely through hereditary rule in the case of monarchs or through oppression in the case of civilian dictators. A military dictatorship seizes power to act as a caretaker government to replace what they consider a flawed civilian government. Military dictatorships are more likely to transition to democracy because at the onset, they are meant to be stop-gap solutions while a new acceptable government forms.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Living by the Sword and Dying by the Sword? Leadership Transitions in and out of Dictatorships |journal = International Studies Quarterly|volume = 60|date = 2016-02-18|issn = 0020-8833|pages = 73–84|doi = 10.1093/isq/sqv014|language = en|first = Alexandre|last = Debs|s2cid = 8989565}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cheibub|first1=Jose Antonio|last2=Gandhi|first2=Jennifer|last3=Vreeland|first3=James|title=Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited|journal=Public Choice|volume=143|issue=1–2|pages=67–101|date=2010|doi=10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2|s2cid=45234838}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Smith|first1=Peter|title=Democracy in Latin America|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

Research suggests that the threat of civil conflict encourages regimes to make democratic concessions. A 2016 study found that drought-induced riots in Sub-Saharan Africa lead regimes, fearing conflict, to make democratic concessions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Aidt|first1=Toke S.|last2=Leon|first2=Gabriel|date=2016-06-01|title=The Democratic Window of Opportunity Evidence from Riots in Sub-Saharan Africa|url=https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-democratic-window-of-opportunity(04b0939e-ac4a-46b2-9472-c2274409c003).html|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|language=en|volume=60|issue=4|pages=694–717|doi=10.1177/0022002714564014|issn=0022-0027|s2cid=29658309}}</ref>

==== Scrambled constituencies ====
[[Mancur Olson]] theorizes that the process of democratization occurs when elites are unable to reconstitute an autocracy.  Olson suggests that this occurs when constituencies or identity groups are mixed within a geographic region. He asserts that this mixed geographic constituencies requires elites to for democratic and representative institutions to control the region, and to limit the power of competing elite groups.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Olson|first=Mancur|date=1993|title=Dictatorship, Democracy and Development|url=http://revistas.up.edu.pe/index.php/apuntes/article/view/342|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=567–576 |doi=10.2307/2938736 |jstor=2938736|s2cid=145312307 }}</ref>

==== Death or ouster of dictator ====
One analysis found that "Compared with other forms of leadership turnover in autocracies—such as coups, elections, or term limits—which lead to regime collapse about half of the time, the death of a dictator is remarkably inconsequential. ...  of the 79 dictators who have died in office (1946–2014)... in the vast majority (92%) of cases, the regime persists after the autocrat's death."<ref>{{Cite magazine |author=Andrea Kendall-Taylor |author2=Erica Frantz |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/10/when-dictators-die/ |url-access=subscription |title=When Dictators Die |magazine=Foreign Policy |date=September 10, 2015}}</ref>

=== Women's suffrage ===
One of the critiques of Huntington's periodization is that it doesn't give enough weight to universal suffrage.<ref>Renske Doorenspleet, "Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization." ''World Politics'' 52(3) 2000: 384–406, p. 385.</ref><ref>[[Georgina Waylen]], ''Engendering Transitions: Women's Mobilization, Institutions and Gender Outcomes''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.</ref> Pamela Paxton argues that once women's suffrage is taken into account, the data reveal "a long, continuous democratization period from 1893–1958, with only war-related reversals."<ref>Paxton, P. "Women's suffrage in the measurement of democracy: Problems of operationalization." ''Studies in Comparative International Development''35(3): 2000: 92–111, p. 102.[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02699767.pdf]</ref>

=== International factors ===
==== War and national security ====
[[Jeffrey Herbst]], in his paper "War and the State in Africa" (1990), explains how democratization in European states was achieved through political development fostered by war-making and these "lessons from the case of Europe show that war is an important cause of [[state formation]] that is missing in Africa today."<ref name=Herbst>Herbst, Jeffrey. "War and the State in Africa." ''International Security'' (1990): 117–139.</ref> Herbst writes that war and the threat of invasion by neighbors caused European state to more efficiently collect revenue, forced leaders to improve administrative capabilities, and fostered state unification and a sense of national identity (a common, powerful association between the state and its citizens).<ref name=Herbst/> Herbst writes that in Africa and elsewhere in the non-European world "states are developing in a fundamentally new environment" because they mostly "gained Independence without having to resort to combat and have not faced a security threat since independence."<ref name=Herbst/> Herbst notes that the strongest non-European states, [[South Korea]] and [[Taiwan]], are "largely 'warfare' states that have been molded, in part, by the near constant threat of external aggression."<ref name=Herbst/>

Elizabeth Kier has challenged claims that total war prompts democratization, showing in the cases of the UK and Italy during World War I that the policies adopted by the Italian government during World War I prompted a fascist backlash whereas UK government policies towards labor undermined broader democratization.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kier|first=Elizabeth|title=War and Democracy: Labor and the Politics of Peace|date=2021|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-1-5017-5640-5|jstor=10.7591/j.ctv16pn3kw}}</ref>

==== War and peace ====
{{main|Territorial peace theory}}
[[File:War Office Second World War Official Collection B11634.jpg|thumb|The link between war and democratization has been a focus on some theories.]]
Wars may contribute to the [[state-building]] that precedes a transition to democracy, but war is mainly a serious obstacle to democratization. While adherents of the [[democratic peace theory]] believe that democracy causes peace, the [[territorial peace theory]] makes the opposite claim that peace causes democracy. In fact, war and territorial threats to a country are likely to increase [[authoritarianism]] and lead to autocracy. 
This is supported by historical evidence showing that in almost all cases, peace has come before democracy. A number of scholars have argued that there is little support for the hypothesis that democracy causes peace, but strong evidence for the opposite hypothesis that peace leads to democracy.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gibler |first1=Douglas M. |last2=Owsiak |first2=Andrew |title=Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919–2001 |journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution |volume=62 |issue=9 |pages=1847–1875 |date=2017 |doi=10.1177/0022002717708599|s2cid=158036471 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gat |first1=Azar |title=The Causes of War and the Spread of Peace: Will War Rebound? |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ray |first1=James Lee |title=Does Democracy Cause Peace? |journal=[[Annual Review of Political Science]] |date=1998 |volume=1 |pages=27–46 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.27}}</ref>

[[Christian Welzel|Christian Welzel's]] [[Freedom Rising|human empowerment theory]] posits that existential security leads to emancipative cultural values and support for a democratic political organization.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Welzel |first1=Christian |title=Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation |date=2013 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> This is in agreement with theories based on [[evolutionary psychology]]. The so-called [[Theory of Regal and Kungic Societal Structures|regality theory]] finds that people develop a psychological preference for a strong leader and an [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] form of government in situations of war or perceived collective danger. On the other hand, people will support [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] values and a preference for democracy in situations of peace and safety. The consequence of this is that a society will develop in the direction of [[autocracy]] and an authoritarian government when people perceive collective danger, while the development in the democratic direction requires collective safety.<ref name="Fog2017">{{cite book |last1=Fog |first1=Agner |date=2017 |title=Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture |publisher=Open Book Publishers |doi=10.11647/OBP.0128 |isbn=978-1-78374-403-9 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== International institutions ====
A number of studies have found that institutional institutions have helped facilitate democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pevehouse|first=Jon C.|date=2002|title=Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/democracy-from-the-outsidein-international-organizations-and-democratization/E3F63B3207C1282FA3A8146F2D792DFB|journal=International Organization|language=en|volume=56|issue=3|pages=515–549|doi=10.1162/002081802760199872|s2cid=154702046|issn=1531-5088}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mansfield|first1=Edward D.|last2=Pevehouse|first2=Jon C.|date=2006|title=Democratization and International Organizations|journal=International Organization|language=en|volume=60|issue=1|pages=137–167|doi=10.1017/S002081830606005X|issn=1531-5088|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Hafner-Burton|first=Emilie M.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BjrQ6YQC6d8C|title=Forced to Be Good: Why Trade Agreements Boost Human Rights|date=2011|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-0-8014-5746-3|language=en}}</ref> [[Thomas Risse]] wrote in 2009, "there is a consensus in the literature on Eastern Europe that the [[Member state of the European Union|EU membership]] perspective had a huge anchoring effects for [[Enlargement of the European Union|the new democracies]]."<ref name=":22">{{Cite book|last=Risse|first=Thomas|url=https://archive.org/details/promotingdemocra00mage|title=Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law: American and European Strategies |date=2009 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-0-230-24452-8|editor-last=Magen|editor-first=Amichai|series=Governance and Limited Statehood Series|pages=[https://archive.org/details/promotingdemocra00mage/page/n262 244]–271|chapter=Conclusions: Towards Transatlantic Democracy Promotion? |doi=10.1057/9780230244528_9|editor2-last=Risse|editor2-first=Thomas|editor3-last=McFaul|editor3-first=Michael A.|url-access=limited}}</ref> Scholars have also linked [[NATO expansion]] with playing a role in democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Poast|first1=Paul|last2=Chinchilla|first2=Alexandra|date=2020|title=Good for democracy? Evidence from the 2004 NATO expansion|journal=International Politics|volume=57|issue=3|pages=471–490|doi=10.1057/s41311-020-00236-6|issn=1740-3898|s2cid=219012478}}</ref> international forces can significantly affect democratization. Global forces like the diffusion of democratic ideas and pressure from international financial institutions to democratize have led to democratization.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Geddes |first1=Barbara |title=What Causes Democratization |date=7 July 2011 |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0029}}</ref>

==== Promotion, and foreign influence and intervention ====
{{main|Democracy promotion}}
The European Union has contributed to the spread of democracy, in particular by encouraging democratic reforms in aspiring member states. [[Thomas Risse]] wrote in 2009, "there is a consensus in the literature on Eastern Europe that the EU membership perspective had a huge anchoring effects for the new democracies."<ref name=":22" />

[[Steven Levitsky]] and Lucan Way have argued that close ties to the West increased the likelihood of democratization after the end of the Cold War, whereas states with weak ties to the West adopted [[Illiberal democracy|competitive authoritarian]] regimes.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Levitsky|first1=Steven|last2=Way|first2=Lucan|date=2005-07-27|title=International Linkage and Democratization|journal=Journal of Democracy|language=en|volume=16|issue=3|pages=20–34|doi=10.1353/jod.2005.0048|s2cid=154397302|issn=1086-3214}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/competitive-authoritarianism/20A51BE2EBAB59B8AAEFD91B8FA3C9D6|title=Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War|last1=Levitsky|first1=Steven|last2=Way|first2=Lucan A.|date=2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/CBO9780511781353|isbn=9780511781353}}</ref>

A 2002 study found that membership in [[regional organization]]s "is correlated with transitions to democracy during the period from 1950 to 1992."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pevehouse|first=Jon C.|date=2002-06-01|title=Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization|journal=International Organization|volume=56|issue=3|pages=515–549|doi=10.1162/002081802760199872|s2cid=154702046|issn=1531-5088}}</ref>

A 2004 study found no evidence that foreign aid led to democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Knack|first=Stephen|date=2004-03-01|title=Does Foreign Aid Promote Democracy?|journal=International Studies Quarterly|language=en|volume=48|issue=1|pages=251–266|doi=10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00299.x|issn=0020-8833|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Democracies have often been imposed by military intervention, for example in [[Occupation of Japan|Japan]] and [[Occupation of Germany|Germany]] [[Aftermath of World War II|after World War II]].<ref name="GT">{{cite journal|last=Therborn|first=Göran|author-link=Göran Therborn|date=May–June 1977 |title=The rule of capital and the rise of democracy |url=https://newleftreview.org/issues/i103/articles/goran-therborn-the-rule-of-capital-and-the-rise-of-democracy |url-access=subscription |journal=[[New Left Review]] |number=103 |pages=3–41}}</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=599 ''The Independent'']</ref> In other cases, [[decolonization]] sometimes facilitated the establishment of democracies that were soon replaced by authoritarian regimes. For example, Syria, after gaining independence from [[Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon|French mandatory control]] at the beginning of the [[Cold War]], failed to [[Democratic consolidation|consolidate]] its democracy, so it eventually collapsed and was replaced by a [[Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region|Ba'athist dictatorship]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Krokowska|first1=Katarzyna|year=2011|title=The Fall of Democracy in Syria|url=http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/katarzyna_krokowska.pdf|journal=Perceptions|access-date=2016-02-13|archive-date=2017-03-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312042938/http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/katarzyna_krokowska.pdf}}</ref>

Robert Dahl argued in ''On Democracy'' that foreign interventions contributed to democratic failures, citing Soviet interventions in Central and Eastern Europe and U.S. interventions in Latin America.<ref name=":4" /> However, the delegitimization of empires contributed to the emergence of democracy as former colonies gained independence and implemented democracy.<ref name=":4" />

==== Geographic factors ====
Some scholars link the emergence and sustenance of democracies to areas with access to the sea, which tends to increase the mobility of people, goods, capital, and ideas.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Gerring |first1=John |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/deep-roots-of-modern-democracy/6AA764716C8F6BC7FF8A64F6CA2DA565 |title=The Deep Roots of Modern Democracy: Geography and the Diffusion of Political Institutions |last2=Apfeld |first2=Brendan |last3=Wig |first3=Tore |last4=Tollefsen |first4=Andreas Forø |date=2022 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-009-10037-3 |doi=10.1017/9781009115223|s2cid=252021781 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Deudney |first=Daniel H. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NalIdFN65e8C |title=Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village |date=2007 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-1-4008-3727-4 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Historical factors ===
==== Historical legacies ====
In seeking to explain why North America developed stable democracies and Latin America did not, Seymour Martin Lipset, in ''The Democratic Century'' (2004), holds that the reason is that the initial patterns of colonization, the subsequent process of economic incorporation of the new colonies, and the wars of independence differ. The divergent histories of Britain and Iberia are seen as creating different cultural legacies that affected the prospects of democracy.<ref>Seymour Martin Lipset and Jason Lakin, ''The Democratic Century''. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, Part II.</ref> A related argument is presented by [[James A. Robinson (economist)|James A. Robinson]] in "Critical Junctures and Developmental Paths" (2022).<ref>James A. Robinson, "Critical Junctures and Developmental Paths: Colonialism and Long-Term Economic Prosperity," Ch. 2, in David Collier and Gerardo L. Munck (eds.), ''Critical Junctures and Historical Legacies: Insights and Methods for Comparative Social Science''. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022.</ref>

=== Sequencing and causality ===
Scholars have discussed whether the order in which things happen helps or hinders the process of democratization. An early discussion occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Dankwart Rustow argued that "'the most effective sequence' is the pursuit of national unity, government authority, and political equality, in that order."<ref name="Samuel P. Huntington 1987, p. 19">Samuel P. Huntington, "The Goals of Development," pp. 3–32, in Myron Weiner and Samuel Huntington (eds.), ''Understanding Political Development''. Boston: Little Brown, 1987, p. 19.</ref> Eric Nordlinger and Samuel Huntington stressed "the importance of developing effective governmental institutions before the emergence of mass participation in politics."<ref name="Samuel P. Huntington 1987, p. 19"/> Robert Dahl, in ''Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition'' (1971), held that the "commonest sequence among the older and more stable polyarchies has been some approximation of the ... path [in which] competitive politics preceded expansion in participation."<ref>Dahl, Robert A. (1971). ''Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition''. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 36.</ref>

In the 2010s, the discussion focused on the impact of the sequencing between state building and democratization. [[Francis Fukuyama]], in [[Political Order and Political Decay]] (2014), echoes Huntington's "state-first" argument and holds that those "countries in which democracy preceded modern state-building have had much greater problems achieving high-quality governance."<ref>Fukuyama, Francis. ''Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy''. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2014, p 30.</ref> This view has been supported by [[Sheri Berman]], who offers a sweeping overview of European history and concludes that "sequencing matters" and that "without strong states...liberal democracy is difficult if not impossible to achieve."
<ref>Berman, Sheri, ''Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019, p. 394.</ref>

However, this state-first thesis has been challenged. Relying on a comparison of Denmark and Greece, and quantitative research on 180 countries across 1789–2019, Haakon Gjerløw, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Tore Wig, and Matthew C. Wilson, in ''One Road to Riches?'' (2022), "find little evidence to support the stateness-first argument."<ref>Gjerløw, H., Knutsen, C., Wig, T., & Wilson, M. (2022). ''One Road to Riches?: How State Building and Democratization Affect Economic Development''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. i.</ref> Based on a comparison of European and Latin American countries, [[Sebastián Mazzuca]] and Gerardo Munck, in ''A Middle-Quality Institutional Trap'' (2021), argue that counter to the state-first thesis, the "starting point of political developments is less important than whether the State–democracy relationship is a virtuous cycle, triggering causal mechanisms that reinforce each."<ref>Sebastián Mazzuca and Gerardo Munck (2021). ''A Middle-Quality Institutional Trap: Democracy and State Capacity in Latin America''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. i.</ref>

In sequences of democratization for many countries, Morrison et al. found elections as the most frequent first element of the sequence of democratization but found this ordering does not necessarily predict successful democratization.<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4494230 Morrison, Kelly and Lundstedt, Martin and Sato, Yuko and Boese, Vanessa A. and Markström, Klas and Lindberg, Staffan I., Chains in Episodes of Democratization (June 28, 2023). V-Dem Working Paper No. 2023:141]</ref>

The [[democratic peace theory]] claims that democracy causes peace, while the [[territorial peace theory]] claims that peace causes democracy.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gibler |first1=Douglas M. |last2=Miller |first2=Steven V. |editor1-last=McLaughlin |editor1-first=Sara |editor2-last=Vasquez |editor2-first=John A. |title=What do we know about War? |date=2021 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |pages=158–170 |edition=3 |chapter=The Territorial Peace: Current and Future Research}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Sources==
<!-- added to support article excerpts -->
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Casanova |first1=Julián |title=Twentieth-century Spain. A History. |last2=Gil Andrés |first2=Carlos |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-107-60267-0 |language=en |author1-link=Julián Casanova | translator-last=Douch |translator-first=Martin |oclc=870438787}}
* {{cite journal |last=Colomer Rubio |first=Juan Carlos |title=Todo está casi perdonado. A propósito de la Transición, debate historiográfico y propuestas metodológicas |trans-title=All is almost forgiven. Regarding the Transition, historiographic debate and methodological proposals |url=https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4690887.pdf |journal=Stvdivm. Revista de Humanidades |volume=18 |year=2012 |issn=1137-8417 |language=es}}
* {{cite book |last=Katsiaficas |first=George |author-link1=George Katsiaficas |title=Asia's Unknown Uprisings, Volume 1: South Korean Social Movements in the 20th Century |year=2012 |publisher=[[PM Press]] |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=w7dHEAAAQBAJ |isbn=978-1-60486-457-1}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Orme |first1=John |title=Dismounting the Tiger: Lessons from Four Liberalizations |journal=[[Political Science Quarterly]] |volume=103 |issue=2 |pages=245–265 |date=1988 |doi=10.2307/2151183 |issn=0032-3195 |jstor=2151183}}
* {{cite book |last=Ortuño Anaya |first=Pilar |title=Los socialistas europeos y la transición española (1959–1977) |trans-title=European socialists and the Spanish transition (1959–1977) |publisher=Marcial Pons |location=Madrid |date=2005 |page=22 |isbn=84-95379-88-0 |language=es}}
* {{cite book|author-last=Tremlett|author-first=Giles|title=Ghosts of Spain. Travels through Spain and its silent past|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2008|isbn=978-0-8027-1674-3| author-link=Giles Tremlett }}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
=== Key works ===
* Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2006. ''Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.'' New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Albertus, Michael and Victor Menaldo. 2018. ''Authoritarianism and the Elite Origins of Democracy''. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Berman, Sheri. 2019. ''Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day''. New York: Oxford University Press.
* Boix, Carles. 2003. ''Democracy and Redistribution''. New York: Cambridge University Press
* Brancati, Dawn. 2016. ''Democracy Protests: Origins, Features and Significance''. New York: Cambridge University Press
* Carothers, Thomas. 1999. ''Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve''. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
* Collier, Ruth Berins. 1999. ''Paths Toward Democracy: Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America''. New York: Cambridge University Press
* Coppedge, Michael, Amanda Edgell, Carl Henrik Knutsen, and Staffan I. Lindberg (eds.). 2022. ''Why Democracies Develop and Decline''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. ''Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy''. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
* Haggard, Stephen and Robert Kaufman. 2016. ''Dictators and Democrats: Elites, Masses, and Regime Change''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
* Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2005. ''Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence''. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Hadenius, Axel. 2001. ''Institutions and Democratic Citizenship''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2010. ''Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. ''Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe''. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
* Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy." ''American Political Science Review'' 53(1): 69–105.
* Mainwaring, Scott, and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. 2014. ''Democracies and Dictatorships in Latin America. Emergence, Survival, and Fall''. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Møller, Jørgen and Svend-Erik Skaaning (eds.). 2016. ''The State-Democracy Nexus. Conceptual Distinctions, Theoretical Perspectives, and Comparative Approaches''. London: Routledge.
* O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. ''Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies''. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 
* Przeworski, Adam. 1991. ''Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. ''Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Rosenfeld, Bryn. 2020. ''The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy''. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
* Schaffer, Frederic C. ''Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture''. 1998. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
* Teele, Dawn Langan. 2018. ''Forging the Franchise: The Political Origins of the Women's Vote''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
* Teorell, Jan. 2010. ''Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972 -2006''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Tilly, Charles. 2004. ''Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000''. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Tilly, Charles. 2007. ''Democracy''. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. ''Democratization: A Comparative Analysis of 170 Countries''. Routledge.
* Welzel, Christian. 2013. ''Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation''. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
* Weyland, Kurt. 2014. ''Making Waves: Democratic Contention in Europe and Latin America since the Revolutions of 1848''. New York: Cambridge University Press
* Zakaria, Fareed. ''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad''. 2003. New York: W.W. Norton.
* Ziblatt, Daniel. 2017. ''Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy''. New York: Cambridge University Press.

=== Overviews of the research ===
* Bunce, Valerie. 2000. "Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded Generalizations." ''Comparative Political Studies'' 33(6–7): 703–34.
* Cheibub, José Antonio, and James Raymond Vreeland. 2018. "Modernization Theory: Does Economic Development Cause Democratization?" pp.&nbsp;3–21, in Carol Lancaster and Nicolas van de Walle (eds.), ''Oxford Handbook of the Politics of Development''. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
* Coppedge, Michael. 2012. ''Democratization and Research Methods''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Geddes, Barbara. 1999.  "What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?" ''Annual Review of Political Science'' 2:1, 115–144.[https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220522051024/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115 |date=2022-05-22 }}
* Mazzuca, Sebastián. 2010. "Macrofoundations of Regime Change: Democracy, State Formation, and Capitalist Development." ''Comparative Politics'' 43(1): 1–19.
* Møller, Jørgen, and Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2013. ''Democracy and Democratization in Comparative Perspective: Conceptions, Conjunctures, Causes and Consequences''. London, UK: Routledge.
* Munck, Gerardo L. 2015. "Democratic Transitions," pp.&nbsp;97–100, in James D. Wright (ed.), ''International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences'' 2nd edn., Vol. 6. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2731428]
* Potter, David. 1997. "Explaining Democratization," pp.&nbsp;1–40, in David Potter, David Goldblatt, Margaret Kiloh, and Paul Lewis (eds.), ''Democratization''. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press and The Open University.
* Welzel, Christian. 2009. "Theories of Democratization", pp.&nbsp;74–91, in Christian W. Haerpfer, Patrick Bernhagen, Ronald F. Inglehart, and Christian Welzel (eds.), ''Democratization''. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
* Wucherpfennig, Julian, and Franziska Deutsch. 2009. "Modernization and Democracy: Theories and Evidence Revisited." ''Living Reviews in Democracy'' Vol. 1, p.&nbsp;1–9. 9p.[https://cis.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/cis-dam/CIS_DAM_2015/WorkingPapers/Living_Reviews_Democracy/Wucherpfennig%20Deutsch.pdf]

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|democratization}}
{{Wikiquote|democratization}}
{{Commons category|Democratization|lcfirst=yes}}
*[http://www.idea.int International IDEA] ([[International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance]])
*Muno, Wolfgang. 2012. [https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/cias/wiki/d_Democratization.html "Democratization"]. InterAmerican Wiki: Terms – Concepts – Critical Perspectives.
*[https://democracyparadox.com/the-democracy-paradox-podcast/ Podcast: Democracy Paradox], hundreds of interviews with democracy experts around the world

{{Fall of Communism|state=autocollapse}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Comparative politics]]
[[Category:Democratization| ]]
[[Category:Political terminology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Democracy]]
[[Category:Law reform]]
[[Category:Global politics]]
[[Category:Types of democracy]]