A Comparative Study on the Conditions of Democratic Consolidation

本研究提出的假设是，解释民主政权长期存在的最根本因素是，人们通过冲突或镇压的长期创伤经历，了解了遵守民主程序的重要性或必要性，尽管他们意识到这些程序不一定满足他们的偏好。此外，我们建议考虑促进或阻碍民主学习的结构性（国内和国际）和制度因素。这一理论框架可以称为“结构-建构主义方法”，因为它强调在一定的结构和制度背景下形成的民主规范。智利和阿根廷的例子证实了在高度镇压的军事政权下改变社会规范的重要性。但它也强调，社会结构的转变降低了左翼势力的动员能力，并促进了右翼势力对民主程序的接受。非洲的案例也揭示了结构性和制度性因素的重要性，尽管在这些案例中，这些因素阻碍而不是促进了民主的持久性。许多非洲国家陷入了种族冲突和薄弱的国家结构相互强化的恶性循环。乌克兰最近发生的事件就是大规模对抗可以走向民主化的一个案例，尽管目前尚不清楚新的民主政权能否长期生存。东南亚的案例表明，冲突的重要性随着时间的推移而变化。就像 1992 年之后的泰国一样，只有当民主被视为缓和而不是加剧冲突时，民主才成为现实。相比之下，韩国的民主化是独裁领导人在冲突局势中理性选择的结果，而不是社会规范转变的结果。台湾与韩国有共同的理性选择方面，尽管中国和台湾之间的冲突也与促使威权领导人妥协有关。较少的

This study presents the hypothesis that the most fundamental factor explaining the long-term endurance of democratic regimes is that people learn, through long and traumatic experiences of conflicts or repression, the importance or necessity of conforming to democratic procedures though being aware that these procedures do not necessarily satisfy their preferences. In addition, we propose to consider structural (both domestic and international) and institutional factors that facilitate or obstruct the democratic learning. This theoretical framework can be called a "structural-constructivist approach" since it emphasizes the democratic norms shaped under certain structural and institutional context. The case of Chile and Argentina confirms the importance of the change of social norms under highly repressive military regimes. However, it also emphasizes that a transformation of social structure lowered leftist forces' capability of mobilization and contributed to rightist forces' accepta … More nce of democratic procedures. The African cases also reveal the importance of structural and institutional factors, though, in these cases, they impede, not facilitate, democratic endurance. Many African countries fell into a vicious circle in which ethnic conflicts and weak state structure reinforce each other. The recent event in Ukraine is a case in which a large-scale confrontation can lead to democratization although it is not yet clear if the new democratic regime can survive for long. The Southeast Asian case demonstrates that the significance of conflicts changes over time. Democracy there became a reality, like in Thailand after 1992, only when democracy came to be regarded as alleviating rather than precipitating conflicts. In contrast, Korea experienced democratization as the result of a rational choice by authoritarian leaders within a conflictive situation rather than the transformation of social norms. Taiwan shares the rational-choice-related aspect with Korea although the conflict between the Chinese and the Taiwanese was also relevant in inducing the authoritarian leaders to compromise. Less