Democratic revolutions as institutional innovation diffusion: Rapid adoption and survival of democracy

Abstract

Recent 'democratic revolutions' in Islamic countries call for a re-consideration of transitions to and from democracy. Transitions to democracy have often been considered the outcome of socio-economic modernization and therefore slow and incremental processes. But as a recent study has made clear, in the last century, transitions to democracy have mainly occurred through rapid leaps rather than slow and incremental steps. Here, we therefore apply an innovation and systems perspective and consider transitions to democracy as processes of institutional, and therefore systemic, innovation adoption. We show that transitions to democracy starting before 1900 lasted for an average of 50 years and a median of 56 years, while transitions originating later took an average of 4.6 years and a median of 1.7 years. However, our results indicate that the survival time of democratic regimes is longer in cases where the transition periods have also been longer, suggesting that patience paid in previous democratizations. We identify a critical 'consolidation-preparing' transition period of 12 years. Our results also show that in cases where the transitions have not been made directly from autocracy to democracy, there are no main institutional paths towards democracy. Instead, democracy seems reachable from a variety of directions. This is in line with the analogy of diffusion of innovations at the nation systems level, for which assumptions are that potential adopter systems may vary in susceptibility over time. The adoption of the institutions of democracy therefore corresponds to the adoption of a new political communications standard for a nation, in this case the innovation of involving in principle all adult citizens on an equal basis.

A systems approach to cultural evolution

“…Yet these ideas are also found in the classical works of sociology, linguistics, and economics (Marx, 1867/1990, Saussure, 1959, Durkheim, 1995, and are now widespread throughout the humanities and social sciences. To touch on just a few areas, systems thinking seems to be implicated in understanding gender structures (e.g., Walby, 1989), social norms, attitudes and ideology (e.g., Boutyline and Vaisey, 2017;Inglehart, 2018;Jansson et al, 2013;Strimling et al, 2019), and systems of language (e.g., Greenhill et al, 2017), technology (e.g., Franklin, 1999), economy (e.g., Wallerstein, 1974), and religion (e.g., Geertz, 1973). A systems approach provides a promising bridge to the as of yet unexplored wealth of theorising about culture coming from within the humanities and social sciences.…”

Women's rights in democratic transitions: A global sequence analysis, 1900–2012

“…However, democratic development can sometimes be abrupt and clearly nonlinear, suggesting threshold values that change the speed or direction of development (Jansson et al. ; Lindenfors et al. ; Spaiser et al.…”

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

“…Logic and institutional forms (Nolan and Xiaoqiang 1999 ; Lazer et al 2011 ; Waldorff 2013 ; Jansson et al 2013 ; Huang and Ding 2016 ; Kooijman et al 2017 ; Perry 2021 )…”