Should the rule of law and a well-functioning state be prerequisites for democratisation? Democratic sequencing suggests that they should. This article from the Journal of Democracy argues that sequencing is a problematic idea rooted in scepticism about democracy, which helps to postpone democratisation indefinitely. A more useful alternative is gradualism, which aims to build democracy slowly, taking into account the risks and complications of democratisation.
Sequencing is based on a mistaken premise – that autocracies are more effective at generating rule-of-law development and establishing a well-functioning state than democratising countries. Yet, there is an inherent conflict between rule-of-law development and autocracy. In contrast, no such conflict exists between democracy and the rule of law:
- Desire for economic development does little to promote rule-of-law reform whilst economic progress is possible without substantial progress toward the rule of law.
- Key elements of the rule of law – impartial adjudication, equality before the law and respect for political and civil rights – directly threaten autocratic rule.
- An effective state with significant political autonomy and its own legitimacy and authority is also a threat to autocratic regimes.
- While some aspects of democratisation contribute to rule-of-law problems, others, such as alternation in power and accountability, facilitate rule-of-law development.
- Democratisation requires a state with minimal functional capacity and a monopoly of force. It should not, however, wait for the existence of a well-functioning state – one with capable, efficient and impartial institutions.
- The idea of sequencing overstates the importance of outsiders in promoting democratisation. Democratisation usually occurs because of the desire of citizens to attain political empowerment.
A more useful alternative to sequencing is democratic gradualism, which does not seek to put off indefinitely the core elements of democratisation. Gradualism is an important additional approach to democratisation and should be further developed:
- It is necessary to pay attention to the effect of countries’ socio-economic and political conditions, structures and historical legacies on the prospects for successful democratisation.
- Factors of particular importance include: level of economic development; concentration of sources of national wealth; identity-based divisions; experience with political pluralism; and non-democratic neighbourhoods.
- These factors should be understood not as preconditions which make democratisation either certain or impossible, but as facilitators or non-facilitators.
- In authoritarian countries, democracy promoters can take small but significant steps. These might include: allowing space for independent civil society organisations, political associations and independent media to operate; and holding local elections.
- In semi-authoritarian countries, democracy promoters should adopt strategies aimed at making existing political competition more meaningful.
- Gradualism is not universally applicable. In some countries, rapid movement towards free elections is appropriate. In others, there are no detectable signs of movement towards political pluralism.
