Civil Society, Party Institutionalization, and Democratic Breakdown in the Interwar Period

Abstract

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to the conceptualization and measurement of democracy. It is co-hosted by the University of Gothenburg and University of Notre Dame. With a V-Dem Institute at University of Gothenburg that comprises almost ten staff members, and a project team across the world with four Principal Investigators, fifteen Project Managers, 30+ Regional Managers, 170 Country Coordinators, Research Assistants, and 2,500 Country Experts, the V-Dem project is one of the largest-ever social science research-oriented data collection programs.Please address comments and/or queries for information to: AbstractThe relationship between the strength of civil society and democratic survival in the interwar period has been much debated. Prominent studies have questioned the existence of a positive association, arguing that the relationship is conditioned by the level of party institutionalization. This revisionist perspective has been vindicated by case studies of important European cases, in particular Germany and Italy. But due to a lack of cross-national data, neither the direct effect of civil society nor the alternative perspective has so far been subjected to a comprehensive statistical analysis. In this paper we enlist novel data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project that enable us to carry out such an assessment of all democratic spells in the interwar years. Our survival analysis demonstrates that a vibrant civil society generally contributed to democratic survival in this period and that this effect was not moderated by the level of party institutionalization.3

What do we know about civil society and regime change thirty years after 1989?

“…While there is good reason to doubt that strong associational development is correlated in any way with democratic failure (Bernhard et al 2020;Cornell et al 2016), both Berman and Riley do point out that civil society actors can play an important role in the complex of conditions that can promote democratic regress (whether that is breakdown or backsliding). Substantively, Bermeo (2003) strongly counters this argument placing the blame for the polarisation of civil society on the encouragement of elites, and presents evidence for this from not only the usual suspects of interwar Western Europe and postwar South America, but also interwar East-Central Europe as well.…”

Philanthropy and the Social Economy: Blueprint 2017

“…Since democracy depends on civil society, it's hard to know how both can be true. 1 In another headscratcher, a year that was defined by the politics of lies also saw an increase in the systemic faith in data and algorithmic analysis as guides to a better future. Resolution of these paradoxes comes down to human action-we must fight to protect civil society and democracy; they do not defend themselves.…”