Size, Islandness, and Democracy: A Global Comparison

Abstract

The aim of this global study is to assess the impact of physical variables (size and islandness) on the degree of democracy. The study is conducted at three points in time: 1972, 1985, and 2005. The following variables are controlled for: socioeconomic development, ethnic or linguistic heterogeneity, British or American colonial heritage, and dominant religion. The results show that size per se contains little explanatory value. Findings indicate that religion is becoming a key determinant of democracy during the "fourth wave" of democratization. Furthermore, the success of democracy in non-Christian settings does not depend on the level of socioeconomic development. Instead, results show that as democracy tries to gain a foothold in non-Christian settings, insularity smoothes the transition to popular government. The impact of islandness on democracy within this particular context is increasing over time. Size and DemocracyA classic question which involves physical characteristics, dealt with for the fi rst time in ancient Greece by Plato and Aristotle, concerns the relation between size and democracy. The present work falls explicitly within this tradition in that it aims to assess the strength of association between the size of countries and their corresponding levels of democracy at three points in time. It is, no doubt, of interest to note that there is theoretical support both for an assumption that links smallness to democracy as well as for a counter-assumption which states that largeness is conducive to a democratic form of government. The fi rst view was advocated by Plato and Aristotle, both of whom argued that in a small unit people share a common base of interest and also, by necessity, a common destiny. The Greek philosophers went as far as pointing out the critical size limit above which at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on March 15, 2015 ips.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Microstate Democracy Revisited: Developments in Time and Space

“…Furthermore, as evident from empirical research (Hadenius, 1992: 125-126;Anckar & Anckar, 2000: 230-233;C. Anckar, 2008), rather extreme threshold-effects are operating in the terrain between size and democracy, and it would appear that for states larger than microstates no tendency of a relation between size and democracy is detectable.…”

“…In itself, the notion has not stand unchallenged, as it has been argued, already in the Federalist Papers, that small units are particularly vulnerable to the risk of the tyranny of the majority, whereas larger units by generating different coalitions are likely to advance democratic legitimacy (Hamilton, Madison & Jay, 1961: 82-84;cf Dahl & Tufte, 1973: 10-11;C. Anckar, 2008).…”

“…As stated here earlier, the mechanisms that link small size and democracy remain under-researched, and research in this area also confronts particular difficulties. In their theoretically path-breaking but empirically fairly low-profiled classical study on Size and Democracy Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte list several areas where small size can be expected to influence popular government (Dahl & Tufte, 1973: 13-17; also C. Anckar, 2008). Among these areas are: citizen participation (more effective participation), security and order (more voluntary compliance, less coercion), unity and diversity (homogeneity), common interest (easier to perceive a relation between self-interest and general interest), loyalties (more loyalty to a single integrated community), emotional life (civic relationship invested with high levels of affect, stronger pressures for conformity to collective norms), and rationality (greater speed and accuracy of communication, more opportunities for gaining knowledge, etc).…”

“…This assertion is rooted in several individual investigations and reports, which suggest, for instance, that there is a significant correlation between small island states and democracy (Griffith & Sedoc-Dahleberg, 1997;Clague, Gleason & Knack, 2001; C. Anckar, 2008), that close to 75% of states with populations of under one million were democracies in 1998, compared to a much smaller portion of larger countries (Diamond & Tsalik, 1999: 117), and that state size is a more useful category than degree of development or geographic location for understanding the prerequisites for democracy (Ott, 2000). An observation from the year 1999 is that whereas some three quarters of the microstates in the world were democracies, the same was true of only about one third of other states (D. Anckar, 2002: 377-378).…”

Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV

“…The ACLP index has its focus on contestation, and countries are classified as democracies if: (1) the chief executive is elected; (2) the legislative is elected; (3) there is more than one political party; and (4) there is some alternation in power (an incumbent regime has lost power). The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Democracy Index is a newly developed index that to date has been calculated for three years (2006( , 2008( (EIU 2010). The EIU index consists of five dimensions: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation and political culture.…”