Civil Society and Democracy in Post-Authoritarian and Post-Totalitarian Regimes

Abstract

20 years have now passed since the democratic revolutions of Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. In most cases, the transition has been sustained, with only a small number of reversions from democratic rule. However, while military, business, and political elites have generally respected democratic norms of political competition, disillusionment with mainstream political parties, corruption, failure to control organized crime, declines in voter turnout, and withdrawal from civic life all present challenges for democratic governance (Howard 2003, Ramet 1999, Beetham 2004; Diamond and Morlino 2005; Mainwaring and Hagopian 2005; O ́Donnell 2004a and 2004b; Powell 2004; Rueschemeyer 2004). As the consolidation of democracy ultimately depends upon democratic legitimacy, some see in these trends the risk of a more widespread appeal for demagogic populism or electoral authoritarianism, citing cases such as Venezuela and Russia as examples (Gershman 2007). This paper examines a neglected difference in the analysis of civil society trajectories: whether a society transitioned from authoritarian or totalitarian rule.