The Cultural Evolution of Democracy: Saltational Changes in A Political Regime Landscape

Abstract

Transitions to democracy are most often considered the outcome of historical modernization processes. Socio-economic changes, such as increases in per capita GNP, education levels, urbanization and communication, have traditionally been found to be correlates or ‘requisites’ of democratic reform. However, transition times and the number of reform steps have not been studied comprehensively. Here we show that historically, transitions to democracy have mainly occurred through rapid leaps rather than slow and incremental transition steps, with a median time from autocracy to democracy of 2.4 years, and overnight in the reverse direction. Our results show that autocracy and democracy have acted as peaks in an evolutionary landscape of possible modes of institutional arrangements. Only scarcely have there been slow incremental transitions. We discuss our results in relation to the application of phylogenetic comparative methods in cultural evolution and point out that the evolving unit in this system is the institutional arrangement, not the individual country which is instead better regarded as the ‘host’ for the political system.

No Democratic Transition Without Women's Rights: A Global Sequence Analysis 1900-2012

“…Democratic development can sometimes be abrupt and clearly nonlinear, suggesting threshold values that change the speed or direction of development (Lindenfors et al 2011;Jansson et al 2013;Spaiser et al 2014). In order to study nonlinear dynamics in the interaction between variables, and to potentially identify threshold values for the development of democracy and civil liberties, we also employ a newly developed Bayesian dynamical systems approach that models the probable reform direction of countries depending on state combinations.…”

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

“…Over time, such institutional changes in favor of democracy have resulted in an increasing number of democracies across the globe [19,29,43,44,47,49,60]. Previous analyses of direction and length in institutional leaps also show that transitions tend to cluster in only two major regime-types: autocracy and democracy [14]. Change is much more common within these systems than between them.…”

“…Their evolutionary character is the consequence of natural (unintended, historical) selection processes, and, in learning processes on a global and historical scale, increasingly also artificial (intended, political) ones [4,13]. Thereby, some fundamental institutions or societal contracts are wiped out as unviable in the historic and geographic context they happen to emerge (say, the Weimar republic), some oscillate in dynamic equilibria between autocracy and democracy (say, Argentina), some prove extreme survivability in their original democratic form (say, most first wave democracies, such as Sweden, see [14]). In the longer run, democratizers have managed to learn from previous mistakes and democratic failures, so that now, in general terms, some guiding principles may frame power struggles and negotiations between major interest groups in non-democratic nations subject to "democratic revolutions".…”

“…The susceptible "host" in this case is the nation-state that may or may not adopt a democratic standard for political communication [10,14]. The unit of selection is the package of institutions that are essential for democratic political communication.…”

Using Bayesian dynamical systems, model averaging and neural networks to determine interactions between socio-economic indicators

“…Data availability has opened up possibilities for a vast number of studies on evolution of the political, economical and sociological aspects of global development. Some examples include: causes of economic growth [ 2 ]; impact of democracy on health, schooling and development [ 3 , 4 ]; globalization and changes in societal values [ 5 ]; and relationships between liberalism, post-materialism and freedom [ 6 ]. Studies of social systems often consider different scales—e.g.…”