Transition and Civil Society

  • Graeme Gill


In previous chapters the basic struts of a theory of democratization that brought together the élite focus of the transition school and the civil society emphasis which has been missing from that theory have been put in place. In Chapter 2 a number of considerations relating to regime breakdown were outlined. In Chapter 3 a typology of modes of transition was noted. In Chapter 4 a range of propositions concerning the relationship between state and society and the nature of both of these was suggested. It is time to bring these together into a more integrated treatment of democratic transition, using a number of the cases of such regime change which have been the foci of attention of the transition literature. These will be discussed in terms of the typology of modes of transition, with a view to showing how an understanding of the role of civil society and its relationship with the state is essential to satisfactory comprehension of the process of transition itself.


Civil Society Political Party Trade Union Presidential Election Authoritarian Regime 
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.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), p. 114.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996) p. 88.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David Gilmour, The Transformation of Spain. From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy (London, Quartet Books, 1985), p. 23.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilmour, pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For an excellent discussion of this, see Raymond Carr and Juan Pablo Fusi, Spain. Dictatorship to Democracy (London, Allen and Unwin, 1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For a study which uses public opinion data from the period leading up to the transition, see Rafael Lopez-Pintor, ‘Mass and Elite Perspectives in the Process of Transition to Democracy’, Enrique A. Baloyra (ed.), Comparing New Democracies. Transition and Consolidation in Mediterranean Europe and the Southern Cone (Boulder, Westview Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilmour, p. 92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilmour, pp. 54–59.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Carr and Fusi, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul Preston, The Triumph of Democracy in Spain (London, Methuen, 1986), p. 18.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a discussion of the background to local nationalism in Catalonia and the Basque lands, see Gilmour, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preston, p. 51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jose Maria Maravall and Julian Santamaria, ‘Political Change in Spain and the Prospects for Democracy’, Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter and Laurence Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Southern Europe (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 82.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Which also stimulated the emergence among young officers of the Union Militar Democratica (UMD), an organization favouring the establishment of a democratic system of government and political independence of the military. Charles Powell, ‘International Aspects of Democratization; The Case of Spain’, Laurence Whitehead (ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratization. Europe and the Americas (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 287. See pp. 287–289 for the broader effects on developments in Spain of the Portuguese experience.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilmour, p. 139.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    For the argument that, in principle, the king had three options, to seek to preserve the essence of the existing regime, to initiate change from within the regime, or to seek a ‘democratic rupture’, see Kenneth Medhurst, ‘Spain’s Evolutionary Pathway from Dictatorship to Democracy’, West European Politics 7, 2, April 1984, pp. 32–33. On US support for the king, see Jonathan Story and Benny Pollack,’ spain’s Transition: Domestic and External Linkages’, Geoffrey Pridham, Encouraging Democracy. The International Context of Regime Transition in Southern Europe (Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1991), pp. 131–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilmour, p. 145.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Preston, pp. 95–96.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Law for Political Reform involved popular sovereignty, universal suffrage, recognition of political pluralism, the abolition of the Franquist Cortes, Movimiento and National Council, elections for a bicameral legislature, and codification of the position of the king. Gilmour, p. 158.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carr and Fusi, p. xiii.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Also potentially significant was Suarez’s unrivalled access to public opinion polling results and his consequent ability to read the political landscape better than his opponents. Medhurst, p. 36.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Preston, pp. 113–114.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maravall and Santamaria, p. 85.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maravall and Santamaria, p. 88.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Preston, p. 138. Also see the discussion in Gilmour, pp. 194–202.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    For an analysis which focuses upon the 1977, 1979 and 1982 elections, see Mario Casiagli,’ spain: Parties and Party System in the Transition’, West European Politics 7, 2, April 1984.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Although Linz and Stepan argue that the problem of’ stateness’, or national unity (and specifically the Basque problem) had still to be resolved before the transition could be classed as ended. Linz and Stepan, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    With some assistance from abroad, especially Western Europe. See Powell.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    In the terminology of Linz and Stepan, p. 166.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    For an argument that this reflected the military’s identification with Western values, see Andrew Hurrell, ‘The International Dimensions of Democratization in Latin America. The Case of Brazil’, Whitehead, International Dimensions, p. 158. Also see Alfred Stepan, Rethinking Military Politics. Brazil and the Southern Cone (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988), Chapters 5 and 6.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    On these issues see Stepan, Rethinking, Chapter 2 and pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stephen Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman, The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 72.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stepan, Rethinking..., p. 37.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stepan, Rethinking..., p. 40.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luciano Martins, ‘The “Liberalization” of Authoritarian Rule in Brazil’, Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter and Laurence Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Latin America (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 83.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martins, p. 90.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fernando H. Cardoso, ‘Entrepreneurs and the Transition Process: The Brazilian Case’, Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter and Laurence Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Comparative Perspectives (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), pp. 137–153.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stepan, Rethinking..., p. 56.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Although there had been pressures for some time from within the business community favouring a form of liberalization. See the general discussion in Cardoso and Haggard and Kaufman, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haggard and Kaufman, p. 62.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stepan, Rethinking..., pp. 57–59 and 65.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Linz and Stepan, pp. 168–169.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    On the Pinochet regime, see Arturo Valenzuela, ‘The Military in Power. The Consolidation of One-Man Rule’, Paul W. Drake and Ivan Jaksic (eds.), The Struggle for Democracy in Chile (Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1995) and J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela, Military Rule in Chile. Dictatorships and Oppositions (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paul W. Drake and Ivan Jaksic, ‘Introduction: Transformation and Transition in Chile, 1982–1990’, Drake and Jaksic, p. 5.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Drake and Jaksic, ‘Introduction’, p. 5.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Drake and Jaksic, ‘Introduction’, p. 6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alan Angell, ‘International Support for the Chilean Opposition, 1973–1989: Political Parties and the Role of Exiles’, Whitehead, International Dimensions..., pp. 175–200.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    See the discussion in Guillermo Campero, ‘Entrepreneurs Under the Military Regime’, Drake and Jaksic, pp. 134–139.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Borzutzky cites work by Valenzuela and Valenzuela that argues that parties were able to maintain their identity and autonomy despite regime repression and that ‘limiting organizational and electoral activities, rather than undermining politics, freezes the positions of recognized leaders and shifts party activities to other outlets in civil society.’ Silvia T. Borzutzky, ‘The Pinochet Regime: Crisis and Consolidation’, James M. Malloy and Mitchell A. Seligson (eds.), Authoritarians and Democrats. Regime Transition in Latin America (Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987), p. 80. Also see Manuel Antonio Garreton, ‘The Political Opposition and the Party System Under the Military Regime’, Drake and Jaksic.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Borzutzky, p. 83.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Augusto Varas, ‘The Crisis of Legitimacy of Military Rule in the 1980s’, Drake and Jaksic, p. 84.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garreton, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    For a discussion of this, see Linz and Stepan, pp. 207–210.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    For one discussion, see Herbert S. Klein, Bolivia. The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society (New York, Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 246–247.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    For this characterization of the military, see Robert Pinkney, Right-Wing Military Government (Boston, Twayne Pubs, 1990), p. 84.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eduardo A. Gamarra, ‘Bolivia: Disengagement and Democratization’, Constantine P. Danopoulos (ed.), Military Disengagement from Politics (London, Routledge, 1988), p. 52–53.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Laurence Whitehead, ‘Bolivia’s Failed Democratization, 1977–1980’, Transitions... Latin America, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gamarra, p. 55–56.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klein, pp. 256–257.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Haggard and Kaufman, p. 65.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Whitehead, ‘Bolivia’s...’, p. 62.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    For details on these, see Gamarra, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Whitehead, ‘Bolivia’s...’, p. 63.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    For some details, see Whitehead, ‘Bolivia’s...’, p. 65.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Whitehead, ‘Bolivia’s...’, p. 67.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    For an analysis which focuses upon the quasi-presidential and party structures, see Luis E. Gonzalez, Political Structures and Democracy in Uruguay (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Charles Guy Gillespie, Negotiating Democracy. Politicians and Generals in Uruguay (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pinkney, p. 62.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., p. 50.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., p. 62.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., p. 71.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Linz and Stepan, p. 153.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., pp. 174–175.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Charles G. Gillespie, ‘Uruguay’s Transition from Collegial Military-Technocratic Rule’, Transitions... Latin America, p. 183.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    For some figures, see Gillespie, ‘Uruguay’s...’, p. 184.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Haggard and Kaufman, p. 71.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., p. 131.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gillespie, Negotiating..., pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Linz and Stepan, pp. 154–155.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Robin Luckham, ‘Faustian Bargains: Democratic Control over Military and Security Establishments’, Robin Luckham and Gordon White (eds.), Democratization in the South. The Jagged Wave (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996), p. 130.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Luckham, p. 134.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sung-Joo Han, ‘South Korea: Politics in Transition’, Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries. Volume 3. Asia (Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1989), p. 280.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    For some figures on opposition support, see James Cotton, ‘From Authoritarianism to Democracy in South Korea’, James Cotton (ed.), Korea Under Roh Tae-woo. Democratization, Northern Policy and Inter-Korean Relations (Canberra, Allen and Unwin, 1993), p. 30.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gordon White, ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development’, Luckham and White, p. 196.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    For one discussion, see David Potter, ‘Democratization at the Same Time in South Korea and Taiwan’, David Potter, David Goldblatt, Margaret Kiloh and Paul Lewis (eds.), Democratization (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1997), pp. 230–231.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cotton, p. 30.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    This continued into 1986 when there were at least 1700 protest demonstrations. White, p. 194.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Even when Kim Young Sam had formerly advocated a parliamentary system for Korea. Han, p. 285.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cotton, p. 31.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Okonogi Masao,’ south Korea’s Experiment in Democracy’, Cotton, p. 9.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Potter, p. 228; Cotton, p. 32; Han, p. 287.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Masao, p. 12.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Cotton, p. 33–34.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Constantine P. Danopoulos, ‘Democratization by Golpe: The Experience of Modern Portugal’, Constantine P. Danopoulos (ed.), Military Disengagement from Politics (London, Routledge, 1988), p. 234.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hugo Gil Ferreira and Michael W. Marshall, Portugal’s Revolution: Ten Years On (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 254.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kenneth Maxwell, The Making of Portuguese Democracy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    For a discussion of the parties’ emergence, see Walter C. Opello Jr, ‘Portugal: A Case Study of International Determinants of Regime Transition’, Pridham, Encouraging Democracy..., p. 86.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kenneth Maxwell, ‘Regime Overthrow and the Prospects for Democratic Transition in Portugal’, Transitions... Southern Europe, p. 120.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Maxwell, Making..., p. 86.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    According to Opello, these were organized by leftist groups, but COPCON refused to dismantle them. Opello, p. 92.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Although Gomes was not himself a radical, taking pains to assure the US that Portugal would adopt a Western liberal democratic system. Opello, p. 94.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Maxwell, Making..., p. 110.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    For its text, see Ferreira and Marshall pp. 256–262. For discussion, Maxwell, Making..., p. 112.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Support from Western sources worried about the possibility of radicalism in Portugal had been flowing to some of these parties, especially the PSP, for some time. At this time, Soviet support for the PCP was limited to material assistance; Moscow sought to rein in the ambitions of the Portuguese Communists so as not to endanger détente. Opello, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Linz and Stepan, p. 122.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    For the text see Ferreira and Marshall, pp. 263–268.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    For a discussion of the political parties and subsequent elections, see J. R. Lewis and A. M. Williams,’ social Cleavages and Electoral Performance: The Social Basis of Portuguese Parties, 1976–83’, West European Politics 7, 2, April 1984.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Constantine P. Danopoulos, ‘Farewell to Man on Horseback: Intervention and Civilian Supremacy in Modern Greece’, Constantine P. Danopoulos, From Military to Civilian Rule (London, Routledge, 1992), pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Danopoulos, p. 44–45.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    For a balanced view which sees international factors as secondary to domestic in structuring the Greek transition, see Basilios Tsingos, ‘Underwriting Democracy: The European Community and Greece’, Whitehead, International Dimensions..., pp. 315–355.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    This follows Danopoulos, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Linz and Stepan, p. 132.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    This goes some way toward explaining why there was no military reaction to the trial and sentencing of many officers accused of crimes in 1975. Linz and Stepan, p. 132.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Linz and Stepan, pp. 190–191.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    For a discussion of Galtieri’s strategy, see James W. McGuire, ‘Interim Government and Democratic Consolidation: Argentina in Comparative Perspective’, Yossi Shain and Juan J. Linz (eds.), Between States. Interim Governments and Democratic Transitions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 187–188.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Cited in McGuire, p. 188.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    For some details about these documents, see McGuire, pp. 188–189.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Enrique A. Baloyra, ‘Democratic Transition in Comparative Perspective’, Enrique A. Baloyra (ed.), Comparing New Democracies. Transition and Consolidation in Mediterranean Europe and the Southern Cone (Boulder, Westview Press, 1987), p. 24.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Linz and Stepan, p. 193.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    McGuire, pp. 189–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Graeme Gill 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graeme Gill

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations