How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy

A. Main Hypotheses of Relevance to PDT

Best Measures

The freedom ratings come from the annual Freedom House survey Freedom in the World and are based on the category ratings Free, Partly Free, and Not Free, and the numerical ratings on a scale of 1-7 (1 indicating greatest freedoms in terms of political rights and civil liberties, and 7 being the least). The ratings for this report are taken from the Freedom in the World 2005 edition.

Civil Society

Aid is generally directed toward general capacity building, but to be successful and useful, it should be more specifically allocated to civic coalitions that currently receive only about one third of the funding. These coalitions could be key actors in transferring strategic and tactical knowledge and skills and in pressuring for concrete change. Strong and cohesive nonviolent civic coalitions are the most important factor for freedom.

Mass Mobilization

According to the Freedom House study, the major agent of change in the majority of these cases is a broad-based, nonviolent civic resistance (“people power” movement) that uses boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes, and civil disobedience to undermine authoritarian rulers and attack their support.

Clean Break vs. Gradualism

The most successful cases of transition were those where freedom came quickly, within the first few years of transition, rather than slowly, in incremental phases that weaken the importance and power of civic and political forces that emerge during the pre-transition period.

Leadership

There is little chance for success in a “top-down” transition that is launched and led by elites.

External Factors

Karatnycky and Ackerman state that the international democratic community must better understand the role of domestic civic resistance movements in challenging authoritarian leaders and advocating democratization to understand how even minimal aid (several million dollars or less) to these civic groups would greatly influence success in this region.

 
B. Article Summary

Introduction. In studying what mechanisms most significantly impact the transitions from tyranny to democracy, it is important to note the history of successful, nonviolent “people power” revolutions including the Philippines (1986); Chile and Poland (1988); Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia (1989); the Baltic States (1991); South Africa (1994); Serbia and Peru (2000); Georgia (2003); the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004); Kyrgyzstan (2005).

The main conclusion of this study is that “how a transition occurs and the types of forces that are engaged in pressing the transition have significant impact on the success or failure of democratic reform” (5). The study assesses and codes transitions in 67 countries based on three key factors: the sources of violence that were present before the political opening; the degree of civic (bottom-up) versus powerholder (top-down) influence on the process; and the strength and cohesion of the nonviolent civic coalition.

Focus of the Study. This study looks at 67 countries that experienced political transitions in the past 33 years. In these cases, a new government resulted from the fragmentation of larger state units, the end of a dictatorship or one-party rule, or the end of an authoritarian dominant-party system. It excludes countries that are too small (population of less than 1 million), post-war transitions in Western Europe and Japan, and cases where one form of tyranny or dictatorship simply replaced another.

Principal Findings: How Freedom is Won. Civic resistance played a crucial role in 50 of the 67 transitions in this study. Strong and cohesive nonviolent civic coalitions are designated by Freedom House to be the most important factor for freedom. When present, these coalitions have, on average, increased the Freedom of the World numerical rating from 5.33 pre-transition to 2.09 after the transition occurred. “The stronger and more cohesive the nonviolent civic coalition operating in societies in the years immediately preceding the transition, the deeper the transformation in the direction of freedom and democracy” (7).

There is little chance for freedom in instances of top-down transitions that are initiated and led by elites.

The prospect for freedom is significantly improved when the opposition does not use violence. The mean freedom rating in the 47 countries where there was very little or no opposition violence was 5.22 pre-transition and 2.53 after. It was also concluded that “recourse to violent conflict in resisting oppression is significantly less likely to produce sustainable freedom, in contrast to violent opposition, which even in the face of state repression, is far more likely to yield a democratic outcome” (8). Nonviolent coalitions reduce the opposition’s willingness to use violence and generally are more likely to yield a positive outcome for freedom.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift. This study states that considering the notable positive effects of civic activity and civic resistance, it is surprising that a larger portion of donor assistance is not specifically allocated to this sector. The authors use the example of USAID: “a third of such assistance is formally allocated to civil society programs,” but “most of these programs are not targeted explicitly at political-reform-oriented NGOs,” (9) and this aid does not prioritize nonviolent civic resistance or youth groups that have consistently been some of the most active and effective actors. Most of this aid supports general capacity building, which includes training and technical assistance. The most successful civic transitions result from the joining of democratic political groups and civil society. According to FH, it is important for international actors to recognize the importance of civic movements, commit to increase their funding, and understand that even minimal investment (several million dollars or less) would greatly strengthen these movements.

Policy Implications. This study identifies several factors that are most conducive to successful transitions:

    * Invest in Civic Life. This category includes general assistance for civic society, assistance focused on education and training in civic nonviolent resistance (election monitoring, activist students, voter education, trade unions, women’s groups, the media), and assistance for cohesive civic coalitions committed to resistance. Diplomatic pressure may need to be exerted to ensure that a civil society will be tolerated.
    * Encourage the Creation of Broad-Based Coalitions. These groups encourage consensus, boost enthusiasm in the general population, increase the number of willing participants, prepare the general population for political and civic activity, and “act as credible representatives of the broader interests of the society or the nation” (12). A broad-based umbrella coalition is best achieved through electoral processes. Once in place, it can ensure transparency and accountability after transition occurs.
    * Transfer Knowledge On Strategies and Tactics of Nonviolent Civic Resistance. Civic movements must have access to those that are trained or experienced in broad-based civic resistance campaigns and can further provide instruction on the dissemination of information through media (text messages, Internet).
    * Expand Space for Nonviolent Action Through Targeted Sanctions. In cases of civil war there must be an end to hostility, followed by internationally supervised or monitored elections. In order to accomplish this, the international democratic community must be willing to use sanctions against government officials that use violent force to suppress nonviolent civic resistance.
    * Provide Enhanced Resources for Independent Media and Communications. Pro-democracy activists must implement independent means of communication such as the Internet, independent newspapers, newsletters, cell phones, satellite phones, or text-messaging devices to achieve their goals. International democracy assistance would greatly improve the accessibility of these resources for pro-democracy activists.

 

There is a detailed section of this report entitled Statistical Summary: Transitions from Authoritarian Rule that uses charts and diagrams to support the following conclusions from this study: “the stronger a nonviolent civic coalition, the larger the gains for freedom;” “transitions with high civic involvement lead to more freedom than top-down transitions;” “gains for freedom are higher when the opposition refrains from violence” (18-21).

The next section contains detailed country reports for all 67 countries presented in this study and provides the freedom ratings pre- and post- transition, as well as major characteristics of each transition such as violence, forces driving the transition, and the strength of nonviolent civic coalitions.

Summary. The study documents political transitions since 1972 that fall under the “Third Wave” of democratization. It tests and confirms the hypothesis that “regime/system changes precipitated by strong, cohesive nonviolent civic coalitions are disposed toward the emergence of durable democratic government” (46).
C. Comments

A combination of the Freedom House vision of the role of international actors (10) combined with ideas such as Vachudova’s vision of the future role of the EU, could make a very strong case for future opportunities in CEE.
(Summarized by Emily Stromquist, 07/10/06)