Democratisation became ‘a global revolution’ that swept the entire world in the late 1980s.’ The democratic opening began in Southern European countries such as Spain and Portugal in the 1970s and reached a high tide in Eastern Europe a decade later. While communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed one by one, authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Africa and Asia showed signs of political change. Even socialist giants such as the Soviet Union and China envisaged popular demands for democratic reform.


Civil Society Political Party Authoritarian Regime Democratic Liberal Party Comparative Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  2. 19.
    See Samuel P. Huntington, ‘Will More Countries Become Democratic?’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 99, no. 2 (Summer 1984), p. 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 21.
    See Ian Roxborough’s review article on Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, ‘The Dilemmas of Redemocratisation’, Government and Opposition, vol. 23, no. 3 (Summer 1988), p. 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 48.
    Larry Diamond, ‘Introduction: Persistence, Erosion, Breakdown, and Renewal’, in Larry Diarnond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds., Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia, vol. 3 (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1989), p. 42.Google Scholar
  5. 49.
    Cynthia McClintock, ‘The Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in a “Least Likely” Case: Peru’, Comparative Politics, vol. 21, no. 2 (januar); 1989), p. 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 50.
    Karen L. Remmer’s review article, ‘New Theoretical Perspectives on Democratization’, Comparative Politics, vol. 28, no. 1 (October 1995), p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 51.
    Doh Chull Shin’s review article, ‘On the Third Wave of Democratisation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research’, World Politics, vol. 47, no. 1 (October 1994), p. 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 52.
    Nancy Bermeo’s review article, ‘Rethinking Regime Change’, Comparative Politiçs, vol. 22, no. 3 (April 1990), p. 374.Google Scholar
  9. 53.
    John Higley and Michael G. Burton, ‘The Elite Variable in Democratic Transitions and Breakdowns’, American Sociological Review, vol. 54, no. 1 (February 1989), p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 57.
    A democracy can be regarded as ‘consolidated if the party or group that takes power in the initial election at the time of transition loses a subsequent election and turns power to those election winners, and if those election winners then peacefully turn over power to the winners of a later election’. See Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratisation in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), p. 267.Google Scholar
  11. 59.
    J. Samuel Valenzuela, ‘Labour Movements in Transitions to Democracy: A Framework for Analysis’, Comparative Politics, vol. 21, no. 4 (July 1989), p. 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. See also Leigh A. Payne, ‘Working Class Strategies in the Transition to Democracy in Brazil’, Comparative Politics, vol. 23, no. 2 (January 1991), pp. 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 62.
    See Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 163.Google Scholar
  14. 63.
    See Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 418. Moore states that ‘a vigorous and independent class of town dwellers has been an indispensable element in the growth of parliamentary democracy. No bourgeoisie, no democracy’.Google Scholar
  15. 64.
    Ulf Sundhaussen, ‘Democracy and the Middle Classes: Reflections on Political Development’, Australia Journal of Politics and History, vol. 37, no. 1 (1991), pp. 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 68.
    Scott Mainwaring, ‘Political Parties and Democratisation in Brazil and the Southern Cone’, Comparative Politics, vol. 21, no. 1 (October 1988), p. 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 69.
    John H. Schaar, Legitimacy in the Modern State (London: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 20.Google Scholar
  18. 70.
    Adam Przeworski, ‘Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy’, in O’Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 51.Google Scholar
  19. 75.
    Richard Hughes, Hong Kong: Borrowed Place — Borrowed Time (London: Andre Deutsch, 1968), p. 9.Google Scholar
  20. 76.
    One commentator maintains that ‘socioeconomically Hong Kong can be democratised or is well equipped with stable democratic development’. See Benjamin K. P. Leung, ‘Political Development: Prospects and Possibilities’, in Benjamin Leung, ed., Social Issues in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 40.Google Scholar
  21. Also see Leung’s ‘Democratisation: Some Problems and Proposed Strategies’, in Y. C. Jao, Leung Chi-keung, Peter Wesley-Smith and Wong Siu-lun, eds., Hong Kong and 1997: Strategies for the Future (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1985), p. 94. Leung wrote: ‘Hong Kong has a reasonably well-established social, economic and political infrastructure which should facilitate the transition to a democratic system’.Google Scholar
  22. 80.
    See Larry Diamond, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Juan Linz, ‘Building and Sustaining Democratic Government in Developing Countries: Some Tentative Findings’, World Affairs, vol. 150, no. 1 (Summer 1987), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  23. Also see Kenneth A. Bollen and Robert W. Jackman, ‘Economic and Noneconomic Determinants of Political Democracy in the 1960s’, in Richard G. Braungart and Margaret M. Braungart, eds., Research in Political Sociology (Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 33–34.Google Scholar
  24. 81.
    See George L. Hicks, ‘Hong Kong on the Eve of Communist Rule’, in Hungdah Chiu, Y. C. Jao, and Yuan-li Wu, eds., The Future of Hong Kong (New York: Quorum Books, 1987), p. 35. Also see John Walden, ‘Hong Kong Chases a Democratic Mirage’, Asian Wall Street Journal, March 7, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 84.
    Andrew Scobell, ‘Hong Kong’s Influence on China: The Tail That Wags the Dog?’ Asian Survey, vol. 28, no. 6 (June 1988), p. 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 85.
    Ian Scott, ‘Sino-British Agreement and the Political Power in Hong Kong’, Asian Pacific Community (Winter 1986), p. 16. Scott also wrote: ‘The Hong Kong government will increasingly be a lame-duck government’. See his article ‘Policy-Making in a Turbulent Environment: The Case of Hong Kong’, International Review of Adniinistrative Science, vol. 52 (1986), p. 460.Google Scholar
  27. 90.
    Determinants of decentralisation include environmental ‘complexity’, ’external threats’, and the degree of risks involved. See Norman Flynn, Public Sector Management (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993), pp. 169–171. One argument for decentralisation is that ‘the responsibility for decision-making is pushed downwards to the point where the information is available to make them’.Google Scholar
  28. See David Beetham, Bureaucracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), p. 17. Administrative decentralisation may also involve concessions ’made to the demands for greater local influence on public programs’ and the establishment of ‘territorial officers with at least limited authority over field personnel of the functional bureaus’.Google Scholar
  29. See Herbert Kaufman, ‘Administrative Decentralisation and Political Power’, in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, eds., Classics of Public Adrninistration (California, Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992), p. 348.Google Scholar
  30. 92.
    For the case of Macau, see Lo Shiu Hing, Political Development in Macau (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1995). 93.Google Scholar
  31. See Arthur G. Rubinoff, ‘Goa’s Attainment of Statehood’, Asian Survey, vol. 32, no. 5 (May 1992), pp. 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. For the case of Timor, see Hamish McDonald, Suharto’s Indonesia (Australia: Dominion Press, 1981) , pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
  33. 94.
    For the role of the former Soviet Union in East Europe’s democratisation, see Tomas Niklasson, ‘The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1988–9: interactions between domestic change and foreign policy’, in Geoffrey Pridham and Tatu Vanhanen, eds., Democratisation in Eastern Europe: Domestic and International Perspectives (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 191–219.Google Scholar
  34. 95.
    See Garry Rodan, ‘Singapore’s Leadership Transition: Erosion or Refinement of Authoritarian Rule’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, vol. 24, no. 1 (1992), pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  35. 96.
    James Cotton, ‘From Authoritarianism to Democracy in South Korea’, Political Studies, vol. 37, no. 2 (June 1989), p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Also see Bret L. Billet, ‘South Korea at the Crossroads: An Evolving Democracy or Authoritarianism Revisited?’ Asian Survey, vol. 30, no. 3 (March 1990), p. 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 97.
    For the details of Taiwan’s democratising transition, see Chou Yangsun and Andrew J. Nathan, ‘Democratising Transition in Taiwan’, Asian Survey, vol. 27, no. 3 (March 1987). Also see Jaushieh Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s Democratisation: Forces Behind the New Momentum (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  38. 99.
    Eun Sung Chung, ‘Transition to Democracy in South Korea’, Asian Profile, vol. 17, no. 1 (February 1989), p. 35.Google Scholar
  39. 100.
    Shim Jae Hoon, ‘Constitutional Wedge’, Far Eastern Economic Review (hereafter FEER), November 15, 1990, p. 12. Also see Robert Bedeski, The Transformation of South Korea: Reform and Reconstruction in the Sixth Republic under Roh Tae Woo 1987–1992 (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 103.
    Chalmers Johnson, ‘South Korean Democratisation: The Role of Economic Development’, Pacific Review, vol. 2, no. 1 (1989), p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 104.
    For labour activism in South Korea, see Min-Ju No-Jo: South Korea’s New Trade Unions (Hong Kong: Asia Monitor Resource Centre, 1988).Google Scholar
  42. 109.
    See, for example, Tun-jen Cheng, ‘Is the Dog Barking? The Middle Class and Democratic Movements in the East Asian NICs’, International Studies Notes, vol. 15, no. 1 (Winter 1990). Also see Dong Wonmo, ‘The Democratisation of South Korea: What Role does the Middle Class Play’, Korea Observers, vol. 22, no. 2 (Summer 1991), pp. 257–282. Although the Singaporean regime remains authoritarian, there has been some degree of ‘middle class alienation’ with the ruling party.Google Scholar
  43. See Garry Rodan, ‘The Growth of the Middle Classes in Singapore and its Political Significance’, in Garry Rodan, ed., Singapore Changes Guard: Social, Political and Economic Directions in the 1990s (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1994), pp. 52–71.Google Scholar
  44. 110.
    See Lucian Pye, Asian Power and Politics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  45. Also see James Cotton, ‘The Limits to Liberalisation in Industrialising Asia: Three Views of the State’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 64, no. 3 (Fall 1991), pp. 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Lo Shiu-hing 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiu-hing Lo
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations