Theories of Democratic and Authoritarian State Formation



For the purposes of reviewing works on post-colonial state formation in general, it would be convenient to adopt a taxonomy that divides the study of the state in terms of three analytic approaches, the psychological, cultural, and structural. In the course of discussing these perspectives some remarks will also be made on attempts to explain democracy and authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia.


Democratic Institution Regime Type Economic Dependency Relative Autonomy Authoritarian State 
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. 1.
    For more on psychological theories of regime type see Zevedei Barbu, Democracy and Dictatorship: Their Psychology and Patterns of Life, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956;Google Scholar
  2. Lawrence E. Grinter, ‘The Social Psychology of Political Development’, Southeast Asian Spectrum 2, 1, 1973, 1–10;Google Scholar
  3. Everett E. Hagen, On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1962;Google Scholar
  4. Robert D. Hess, ‘The Socialization of Attitudes toward Political Authority,’ International Social Science Journal 15, 1963, 542–59;Google Scholar
  5. Lucian Pye, Politics, Personality, and Nation Building, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    Samuel Huntington, ‘Will More Countries Become Democratic’, Political Science Quarterly 99, 2, 1984, 193–218: p. 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4.
    Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Little Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Alvin A. Rabushka & Kenneth A. Shepsle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, Columbus, OH: Merril, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956;Google Scholar
  10. Lipset, ‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address’, American Sociological Review 59, 1, 1994, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 7.
    Miriam Budiardjo, Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1992, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Charles Taylor & Michael C. Hudson, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, 2nd ed, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972; Volker Bornschier & Peter Heintz, eds, Compendium of Data for World-System Analysis: A Sourcebook of Data Based on the Study of MNCs, Economic Policy and National Development, Zurich: Soziologisches Institut der Universitat Zurich, n.d.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Richard Robison, ‘Culture, Politics, and Economy in the Political History of the New Order’, Indonesia 31, 1981, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. This article is a critique of the so-called ‘cultural politics’ approach in the following: Donald Emmerson, Indonesia’s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976;Google Scholar
  15. R. W. Liddle, ‘Models of Indonesian Politics’, Paper presented to the Department of Politics Seminar, Monash University, 1977; Karl Jackson, ‘Bureaucratic Polity: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Power and Communications in Indonesia’, in Karl D. Jackson & Lucian W. Pye, eds, Political Power and Communication in Indonesia, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, pp. 82–136.Google Scholar
  16. See also Burhan D. Magenda, ‘Ethnicity and State-Building in Indonesia: the Cultural Base of the New Order’, in Remo Guidieri, Francesco Pellizi & Stanley J. Tambiah, eds, Ethnicities and Nations: Process of Interethnic Relations in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, Houston: Rothko Chapel, 1988, pp. 345–61.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    On another aspect of the relationship between culture and democracy see Ingrid Creppell, ‘Democracy and Literacy: The Role of Culture in Political Life’, European Journal of Sociology 30, 1989, 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 14.
    David E. Apter & Charles Andrain, ‘Comparative Government: Developing New Nations,’ Journal of Politics 30, 2, 1968, 372–416: p. 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 15.
    Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 16.
    Lucian Pye, ‘The Politics of Southeast Asia,’ in Gabriel A. Almond & James S. Coleman, eds, The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 65–152: p. 91.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Richard Butwell, Southeast Asia: A Political Introduction, New York: Praeger, 1975, pp. 57, 62.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    See Rupert Emerson, Representative Government in Southeast Asia, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955, pp. 20–3, 64–77, for accounts of pre-independence experiences with democratic procedures in the Netherlands Indies and British Malaya.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 21.
    J.S. Fumivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, New York: New York University, 1956, pp. 238–9.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Rupert Emerson, Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937, p. 423.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Amry Vandenbosch, The Dutch East Indies: Its Government, Problems, and Politics, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1941, p. 114.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, p. 35.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Karl Marx, The German Ideology, New York: International Publishers, 1970, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, 1966, p. xv.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    Christopher Chase-Dunn, Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989, p. 125.Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    Karl Marx, ‘The Class Struggles in France,’ pt. 2, in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works: Volume 10, Marx & Engels, 1849–1851, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978, pp. 45–145: p. 79.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    For a test of Moore’s theory see John D. Stephens, ‘Democratic Transition and Breakdown in Western Europe, 1870–1939: A Test of the Moore Thesis’, American Journal of Sociology 94, 5, 1989, 1019–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 34.
    Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society, 4 vols, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1935;Google Scholar
  33. Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939;Google Scholar
  34. Robert Michels, Political Parties, New York: Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eva Etzioni-Halevy, ‘Democratic-Elite Theory: Stabilization versus Breakdown of Democracy’, European Journal of Sociology 31, 2, 1990, 317–50;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. L. G. Field & J. Higley, Elites and Non-Elites: The Possibilities and Their Side Effects, Andover, MA: Warner Modular Publications, 1973;Google Scholar
  37. J. Higley K. & M. G. Burton, ‘The Elite Variable in Democratic Transitions and Breakdowns’, American Sociological Review 54, 1989, 17–32;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Higley, Ursula Hoffman-Lange, Charles Kadushin & Gwen Moore, ‘Elite Integration in Stable Democracies: A Reconsideration’, European Sociological Review 7, 1, 1991, 35–53;Google Scholar
  39. A. Lijphart, ‘Consociational Democracy’, World Politics 21, 1969, 207–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. K. Prewitt & A. Stone, The Ruling Elites: Elite Theory, Power, and American Democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1973.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    Magnus Blomstrom & Bjorn Hettne, Development Theory in Transition — The Dependency Debate and Beyond: Third World Responses, London: Zed, 1985, p. 20.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    For a critical discussion see Joseph R. Gusfield, ‘Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change’, American Journal of Sociology 72, 4, 1967, 351–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 38.
    Bert Hoselitz et al, Theories of Economic Growth, Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  44. 39.
    Walter W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    Gabriel A. Almond, ‘Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, in Almond & James S. Coleman, eds, The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 3–64;Google Scholar
  46. Almond, ‘A Developmental Approach to Political System’, World Politics 17, 1965, 183–214;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Almond & G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Little Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  48. 41.
    Almond, ‘Comparative Political Systems’, Journal of Politics 18, 1956, 391–409; Almond & Powell, Comparative Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 42.
    David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  50. 43.
    A. F. K. Organski, The Stages of Politieal Development, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.Google Scholar
  51. 44.
    Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  52. 45.
    Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, New York: International Publishers, 1963, p. 122.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    For a discussion of the two conceptions of the state in Marx, see Ralph Miliband, ‘Marx and the State,’ Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1965, pp. 278–96.Google Scholar
  54. 49.
    See, for example, S. M. Lipset, ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,’ American Political Science Review 53, 1, 1959, 69–105;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lipset, ‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address’, American Sociological Review 59, 1, 1994, 1–22;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. S. M. Lipset, Kyong-Ryung Seong & John Charles Torres, ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Social Requisites of Democracy’, International Social Science Journal 136, 1993, 155–75;Google Scholar
  57. Karl W. Deutsch, ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development,’ American Political Science Review 55, 3, 1961, 473–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 50.
    Georg P. Muller (with the collaboration of Volker Bornschier), Comparative World Data: A Statistical Handbook for the Social Sciences, Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988, pp. 240, 304.Google Scholar
  59. 51.
    See, for example, Kenneth Bollen, ‘World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 48, 4, 1983, 468–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 52.
    Kenneth A. Bollen & Robert W. Jackman, ‘Economic and Noneconomic Determinants of Political Democracy in the 1960s,’ Research in Political Sociology 1, 1985, 27–48: pp. 38–9. Earlier studies with similar results are Lipset, ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy,’;Google Scholar
  61. Phillip Cutright, ‘National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis,’ American Sociological Review 28, 2, 1963, 253–64;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Deane Neubauer, ‘Some Conditions of Democracy,’ American Political Science Review 61, 4, 1967, 1002–9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Robert W. Jackman, ‘On the Relation of Economic Development to Democratic Performance,’ American Journal of Political Science 17, 3, 1973, 611–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 54.
    Christopher Chase-Dunn, ‘The Effects of International Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study,’ American Sociological Review 40, 6, 1975, 720–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Volker Bornschier, Christopher Chase-Dunn, & Richard Rubinson. ‘Cross-National Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Investment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of Findings and a Reanalysis,’ American Journal of Sociology 84, 3, 1978, 651–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 55.
    Michael Timberlake & Kirk R. Williams, ‘Dependence, Political Exclusion, and Government Repression: Some Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 49, 1, 1984, 141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 56.
    Richard Rubinson, ‘Dependence, Government Revenue, and Economic Growth, 1955–1970,’ Studies in Comparative International Development 12, 2, 1977, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 58.
    Richard Rubinson, ‘The World-Economy and the Distribution of Income Within States: A Cross-National Study,’ American Sociological Review 41, 4, 1976, 638–59: p. 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 59.
    Bollen, ‘World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National Evidence,’ American Sociological Review 48, 4, 1983, 468–79: p. 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 67.
    Guillermo O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics, Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973.Google Scholar
  71. 68.
    Guillermo O’Donnell & P. C. Schmitter, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  72. See also James Cotton, ‘From Authoritarianism to Democracy in South Korea’, Political Studies 37, 1989, 244–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 69.
    See, for example, Hooshang Amirahmadi, ‘The Non-Capitalist Way of Development,’ Review of Radical Political Economics 19, 1, 1987, 22–46;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Clive Y. Thomas, ‘The “Non-Capitalist Path” as Theory and Practice of Decolonisation and Socialist Transformation,’ Latin American Perspectives 5, 2, 1978, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 70.
    Hamza Alavi, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan & Bangladesh,’ New Left Review 74, 1972, 59–81: p. 62; Idem., ‘State and Class Under Peripheral Capitalism,’ in Hamza Alavi & Teodor Shanin, eds, Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies, London: Macmillan Educational Ltd., 1982, pp. 289–307: p. 298.Google Scholar
  76. 73.
    Hamza Alavi, ‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production,’ Economic and Political Weekly 10, 33–5 (special issue), 1975, 1235–62: p. 1235.Google Scholar
  77. 79.
    See, for example, Hamza Alavi, ‘Peasants and Revolution,’ The Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1975, pp. 241–77; Idem., ‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production.’Google Scholar
  78. 81.
    Nicos Poulantzas, ‘Capitalism and the State,’ New Left Review 58, 1969, p. 74. 82. Alavi, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies,’ p. 72.Google Scholar
  79. 86.
    John Saul, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania,’ in idem, The State and Revolution in Eastern Africa, New York & London: Monthly Review Press, 1979, pp. 167–99.Google Scholar
  80. 90.
    See Neil J. Smelser, Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976, pp. 215–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Syed Farid Alatas 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations