Samuel P. HuntingtonThe Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century (Volume 4) (The Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series)

very good

For anyone who is interested in political development in developing world, both this book and his Political Order (1968) are must-read.

Huntington’s attempt in writing this book is to explain the global political development of the late twentieth century and the transition of over thirty different countries from nondemocratic to democratic political systems. Huntington attempts to explain why, how, and the consequences of the third wave of democratization from 1974 to 1990. He is attempting to explain using different historical cases studies the possible reason that countries become democratic or undemocratic. He is not theorizing like in the case of Barrington Moore, but rather he attempts to collect data that can help give possible explanations of why a political system becomes democratic or undemocratic. Huntington recognizes that there are countries that can have all of the characteristics of a democratic society but still be undemocratic. In this Huntington is writing a how-to guide for countries to become democratic. Huntington main theme is that there are the three waves of democratization and with each wave of democratization there is a corresponding reverse-wave. Huntington defines a wave of democratization as a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur in a specific time period. A wave of democratization can bring liberalization and partial democratization to a political system. The reverse-wave happens after the first wave of democratization in which some but not all countries that transitioned into democratic political systems revert back to nondemocratic political systems. The first wave of democratization happened is what Huntington refers to as the first long wave that lasted from the 1828 – 1926. The long wave gave voting rights to major portion of the population, by obtaining a responsible executive who must maintain majority support by means of an election, and the abolition of property qualifications in order to vote. Huntington states that the long wave was started in the United States roughly around 1828. The first reverse wave happened in the Rome in 1922 after a trend of democracy tapering off and in many parts of the world being replaced with traditional forms of authoritarian systems. Huntington sites the rise of communist, fascist, and militaristic ideologies rising in this reverse wave. The allies winning of World War II ushered in a short second wave of democratization. Huntington sites that democracy was promoted in West Germany, Italy, Austria, and Japan and governments in Latin America in 1944 and 1945 were chosen by popular election. In this second short wave of democratization Western colonial powers fell and created many new states but there was no real push for democracy. Malaysia was made “quasi-democratic” in 1957 and states like India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Israel became democratic institutions were sustained for decades. Nigeria, the largest state in Africa, became a democratic institution. The second reverse wave became apparent by the late 1950’s because many different countries were becoming heavily authoritarian and many military coups erupted in places like Brazil and Bolivia in 1964, Argentina in 1968 Peru in 1968, and Ecuador in 1972. Many different states fell to military rule, guided democracy, or other forms of authoritarian rule. By 1975 38 countries fell to coups d’états and many others were under authoritarian rule. This second reverse wave was very striking because countries like India, Uruguay, Chile, and the Philippians had sustained democratic institutions for a quarter of a century and now had fallen to a form of bureaucratic authoritarianism. This reverse wave brought feelings of pessimism about the applicability of democratizing in developing countries as well as sustaining democracies in countries that had already been democratized. After the fall of the Portuguese dictatorship in 1974 many democratic regimes replaced authoritarian ones and brought almost 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Many other countries were moving away from authoritarian systems to help promote more democratic systems. There were considerable setbacks and resistance in many countries like in China in 1989 but the trend of democratization was moving quickly throughout the world. Grease, Portugal, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Philippians and the Soviet Union started to go down paths of democratization. By the end of the third wave the communist regimes were almost eliminated and replaced with different forms of democracies. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the first phase of European decolonization happened with the end of the Portuguese empire. The British Empire relaxed their grip on many new nations, which became democracies. With all the democratization that happened in the third wave, by 1990 there seems to be a less optimistic outlook for the prospects of democracy. There had not been an increase in the proportion of democratic states since the first wave. There were less authoritarian states but still the proportion is far smaller. Huntington attempts to identify possible factors for the future growth and decline of democracy. Huntington sites five major factors that contributed to the timing and transition of the third wave of democracy. The factors are not determinative rather they are characteristics of the third wave of democratization. The first factor is the depending legitimacy problem of authoritarian regimes in a world where democratic values are widely used and accepted. These countries have trouble keeping performance legitimacy due to economic or sometime military failures. The delegitimization of different authoritarian regimes can be seen throughout the different waves. In a time when people are literate and have the means of mobilization the traditional rationale of authoritarian regimes loose their value. Huntington looks at the rise of the second reverse wave authoritarian regimes and notes that they came to power highly on the backs of “negative legitimacy.” Negative legitimacy is relying on the failures of the democratic regime and the authoritarian regime uses this to justify their control on the basis they are fighting corruption, communism, or some other foe. Usually the authoritarian regime uses this negative legitimacy to justify everything but it will slowly decline with time. The authoritarian regime will then start to suffer from “performance legitimacy” because they have failed to deliver what they promised to the people. The regime might have promised economic prosperity or some sort of social change. This problem of legitimacy and performance legitimacy ultimately diffuses authoritarian control in the third wave. The second factor is the mass accumulation of wealth in the 1960s, which raised living standards, increased education, and expanded urban middle class in many countries. Huntington states that countries that are already having great amounts of wealth are generally democratized. This is not to say that wealthy countries are necessarily democracies but most democracies have the characteristics of democratic systems. This correlation insists that countries at the mid-level economic developmental stage are better for democratic development. Huntington states that the poor countries are the least likely to produce democratic systems. The countries that are in the “political transition zone” are more likely to be in the economic stratum and are more likely to transition to democracy. The third factor is the shift of the doctrine and activities of the Catholic Church in 1963 – 1965 from defending the status quo to becoming opponents of authoritarianism. The Protestant religion and democratization are linked and Puritanism was the first among the democratizing religions. Catholicism was, in contrast to the Protestantism in that it seemed to be the antitheses to democracy and represented an authoritative regime. In the third wave many countries that were primary Catholic countries were democratized and Huntington gives a partial explanation for why this had happened. The change came in the 1960s when the Catholic Church broke from the old ties of establishment, land owning oligarchy, and authoritarian governments. The Church started to oppose these older ties and authoritarian regimes and the changes happened. Catholicism changed on a global level by stressing the legitimacy and need for social change, the importance of collegial action, dedication to the poor, and the stressing of individual right. Huntington states that if the Catholic Church did not take a stance against authoritarianism then many of the third wave countries, like the ones in Latin America would not have transitioned to a democracy. The fourth factor is changing in policies of external factors in Europe, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Huntington sites the European community as having great affects on democracy. For Greece, Portugal, and Spain democratization was needed in order to have economic benefits for the European community in order for the European Community to ensure stability of democracy. Huntington cites the beginning of the third wave of democratization coinciding with the proposal of the Helsinki Final Act. The United States major contribution to democratization was promoting democracy in the world. The United States started playing a bigger role in the world with the Carter administration and his commitment to human rights and human rights abuses. The Reagan administration brought a different approach by focusing more on political systems that denied human rights. The Reagan administration focused on the Communism but then expanded to non-communist dictatorships. The U.S. used political, economic, diplomatic, and military actions to promote democratization. Huntington states that the democratization in Eastern Europe was result of the changes made by the Soviet Policy and was far-reaching and dramatic than the Carter administration. Gorbachev made a major step toward democratization by effectively stating the Soviet Union not act to maintain existing communist dictatorships. There was also a commitment to having economic liberalization and political reform. The new Soviet approach opened the door to for non-communist political parties participation, the ousting of existing political leader through elections, and a move toward more market-oriented economies. The fifth and final factor is what Huntington refers to is “Snowballing,” or the demonstration effect of other transitions in the third wave and offering models for following efforts of democratization. The concept of snowballing does not guarantee that if democratization of one country will affect the other. The conditions still have to be right. The country still needs to have the right conditions for democratization to happen. The snowballing effect however has been seen and is effective in the third wave with the democratization of the Soviet Union. Once the Soviet Union democratized the rest of Eastern Europe started to democratize. This happened because these countries did not have the external obstacle of the Soviet Union anymore. The same cannot be said in the case of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. There are many factors that lead to the snowballing effect in Eastern Europe that the other countries don’t have. Huntington states that the first countries to democratize in the first part of the third wave were not caused by snowballing but rather the result of triggers like the leader dying or an unwinnable war. The snowballing seems to take place after these lead countries democratize. The following countries get stimulated and demand similar demands. Huntington indicates how the transitions take place by reformers that are likely to democratize a country. These happen with roles of transformers, replacements, and transplacements. The transformers are those in power in the authoritarian regimes that take lead roles in changing to a democratic system. Transformers account for approximately sixteen out of the thirty-five democratized countries in the third wave transitions. The replacements are much different than transformers. Replacements are when reformers in the regime are too weak or non-existent. The dominant elements in the government are opposed to any regime change. The democratization comes when the dominant opposition group gains strength and gains power after the government collapses or is over thrown. The replacements come to power and then struggle amongst themselves to determine what regime it will become. Replacements account for approximately six out of the thirty-five democratized countries in the third wave transitions. The Transplacements democratization is produced by combined action of the opposition and the existing government. Unlike the replacements the standpatters and the reformers are balanced out and the government is willing to negotiate for regime change. The government has to be forced to negotiate with the opposition. The opposition is more moderate than the standpatters so the negotiations are favorable to the opposition and thus helps form a more democratic system. Transplacments account for approximately eleven out of the thirty-five democratized countries in the third wave transitions Huntington’s analysis of democratization on global political development is very thorough and very well researched. The book is very simple to follow and it seems hard to criticize the book at all. There are very few faults with his analysis but there is a fault in the core of his arguments. The fault lies within his very narrow definition of democracy. Huntington defines democracy in the narrow terms in the Schumpeterian tradition. In that tradition democracy is defines as a political system that chooses the collective decisions makers by selected through fair, honest, and periodic elections in where virtually all adults are eligible for voting. Huntington goes on to state that there are different opinions of what democracy is and the definition he uses is minimal. Huntington ultimately chooses this definition for a democratized institution. Because Huntington does not expand his definition of democracy he leaves out key features of democracy like liberty, equality, and community or civil society. Huntington’s narrow definition maintains that very repressive governments are democratic in that they have elections. These elections don’t necessarily guarantee democracy but it merely represents on narrow facet of democracy. By using the dichotomous approach instead of continuous approach he is making too broad of a statement by stating a country is democratic or not merely based on the right to vote or not. Overall the book is a substantial addition to the knowledge of democratization on a global scale. The book gives a great analysis of the possibilities of why and how countries become democratic or undemocratic. He offers no determinative factors but he offers many variables that cause democratization in different periods of time. Although his definition of democracy is very narrow in that it only relies on the qualities of the electoral process it is still a great contributor to the knowledge of development and democratization in the twentieth century.Other works referenced: Richard Schneirov, Fernandez A. Gaston, “Introduction,” in Democracy as a Way of Life in America: A History (New York: Rutledge Publishing, 2014), 2.

for SFSU class

By studying the latest, the third wave of democratization, Huntington tried to answer the question ‘Is there a fundamentally irreversible, long-term, global trend, as Tocqueville and Bryce suggested, toward the extension of democratic political systems throughout the world? Or is political democracy a form of government limited, with a few exceptions, to that minority of the world’s societies that are wealthy and/or Western?’ (P.27) In his work, the dynamics of democratic transition and consolidation were thoroughly discussed and analyzed with abundant case studies.By and large, his analysis in the ‘The Third Wave’ is still relevant to the endurances and changes of contemporary political regimes. Moreover, the recent resurgence of global authoritarianism led by China and Russia makes the study of 'The Third Wave' more valuable and timely.

This book is a detailed study by one of the most prominent political scientists of the late 20th century of the wave of democratization that engulfed the world in the 1970s-1980s (centering on the Southern and Eastern Europe, Latin America and some Asian countries). It is clearly written, in a concise and at times witty style, with judicious support of quantitative data. In turn, definitions, reasons, processes, actors and prospects of democratization during the period of interest are discussed, and almost every country receives some attention in each chapter.I found the emphasis on realpolitik rather than moral issues very helpful, as it allows one to be in a position of a more or less independent observer. This is most evident in the chapters on legitimacy of different political regimes and on different types of transitions to democracy. The author stresses the importance of compromise and a "middle course" required for a successful transition.The book is an especially interesting read today, 20 years after the first print, when its lessons can be applied to the events of the 90s (could be classified as the end of the 3rd wave and the beginning of the third reverse wave) and recent events in the Middle East, which could usher the 4th wave.

Great for my College course

"The Third Wave" by Samuel Huntington is a good introduction into democratization studies. Huntington, same as in his other books, uses a light style without too much specialist vocabulary and gives numerous fascinating examples from the history of the countries that underwent systemic transformation after 1974. Since his book is a comparative study, though, it leaves out many details crucial for understanding the specific path of democratization adopted in a given country. It also does not pay enough attention to the process of consolidation which has just began when the book was published. "The Third Wave, however, is just the right book for a beginning democratization student. I think even the critics of "The Clash of Civilizations" will be satisfied with "The Third Wave", which is less ideological and more fact-focused than Huntongton's most famous work.Kamil MarcinkiewiczUniversity of Passau, Germany

Obra indispensable en toda biblioteca personal. Recibí el producto en perfectas condiciones y en el tiempo de espera estimado. Excelente.

Huntington Book unfairly forgotten and absent from book shelves of major libraries and political science courses. It is not only clash of civilizations but also the reverse waves of democratization that Huntington warned us in the 1990s playing out now in 2017. Had we paid attention instead of trying to suppress these warnings with political correctness the world would have been a bit more shy in arab spring and its aftermath for example. Or Venezuela now.

Whilst being educational and very informative I found it a bit expensive, but a good investment. Good book!!! A must buy if you require to know more about democracy.

Huntington has produced a remarkable insight into the development of democracy in countries where before there was an authoritarian regime. He examines Latin America - countries such as Cuba feature prominently - as well as Europe. It is essential reading for any student doing a University module on this sort of subject (mine was called Transitions to Democracy!). It is intelligently written, provides information and charts to back up his claims and covers a wide range of topics, from first and second wave democratisation throught to its causes and the people who bring it to being.Huntington does unfortunately tend to drone on a little, pressing his point home with unneeded tedium. But, if you can get past that, the book is absolutely worth buying for the most comprehensive study of democratic regimes the world over. If your studies sound anything like mine, this book is indespensible.