In her 1999 book Paths toward Democracy. The Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America Ruth Berins Collier looks at the literature on democratization and seeks a middle ground. Collier identifies two main “camps” in the literature. The first being the standard class-based analysis, with roots in both the Marxist and historical sociological literature, which links the strength and actions of the working class and worker-based parties to the success of democracy and democratization. The second “camp” avoids or ignores the class category and provides a strategic interaction model, with emphasis on the negotiating or bargaining role of elites.
Collier covers a lot of ground including 27 cases in her analysis in greater or lesser detail. She looks at 17 “historical” cases that cover democratization in primarily Western European countries from the mid-1800s through 1920. These cases are contrasted with 10 cases from the 1970s and 1980s primarily in South America. The book concludes that the literature tends to imply that the historical cases were class-based successes and the more recent cases were examples of the success from elite strategic negotiation.
Collier is not satisfied with this clean, tidy package and posits that the historical cases tended to overstate or misspecify the role of the working class while the contemporary cases underemphasized the working class. Collier puts forward a 3D cube diagram (page 19) to aid in a more nuanced mapping of the dimensions of democratization. The three dimensions are presented as continua of class, prior inclusion (“ins” and “outs”) in the regime, and arena of action (ranging from mobilization/protest to deliberation/negotiation). Then in Chapter 4 she identifies 4 patterns of democratization that show the different paths (Table 4.1 on page 113 provides a summary). In the end she calls for an integration of the class and strategic interaction analyses and urges a focus on the process of democratization not an end result of democracy.
Collier does a good job in making the case for uniting the two “camps” of the democratization literature. However the result is in essence she makes her own clean, tidy package. The problem is there are a bunch of loose strings hanging around the edges. She makes some key assertions that I think are more interesting than this unity package but don’t seem fully supported or developed in the book.
In addition to this integrated middle ground she makes some efforts to assert that the antecedent regime is a key factor in understanding democratization processes. She finds that the regime’s ability to affect the resources and perceived interests of different actors and how they do or do not pursue democratic reform impacts their success in achieving or starting democratic reforms. This is an important finding and she does back this up with anecdotes from the cases but she spends so much time discussing the two “camps” and how labor and elite interacted that the case for the antecedent regime is not strong in my reading.
Perhaps an even more interesting assertion is that, on page 15, of the importance of identities and the creation of shared meaning in the process of democratization. It is not clear from what we read exactly how this plays into the different cases that she highlights. As an example Collier references Sewell and his assertions that artisans in the French Revolution, despite not being working class, achieved a “class consciousness” because economic restructuring changed their position in society and their livelihood opportunities. Artisans shared in the struggle of workers because they had a shared identity as being afflicted by the new economic order. This points to the importance of positionality which seems to be covered in the strategic interaction literature and the naming of “ins” and “outs” in Collier’s 3D cubes.
She throws in the identity card but does not follow up with it and include it in the final analysis. Reading through the cases in the chapters we read and skimming in the chapters not assigned there are many references to different identities and parties but never any assessment of identify formation in the democratization process. This is disappointing because she brings it up in the introductory chapter but then fails to deliver.
One thing that Collier does deliver is an examination of the definition of terms or the boundaries that she uses and others use in analyzing democratization processes. I found this to be quite interesting and useful. In the introductory chapter she lays out a tweaking of the definitions or boundaries of terms and concepts like; working class, democratization, success or effectiveness…etc. (page 14) that support her claim that her analysis is different than other analyses. First I think that her focus on the process of democratization rather than the end result of democracy or a functioning democratic regime is novel and worthwhile. This allows for her interesting discussion of suffrage and how having the goal of suffrage vs. not having the goal of suffrage impacted the different movements within their time periods and cultures. It is interesting to think about Collier’s examination of suffrage with regards to Clemen’s argument in The People’s Lobby and her other work that highlights the strengths that can be gained and repertoires of action that can be engaged by interest groups and social movements by being “outside” and not being engulfed in the institutional structures of formalized rules and rights. I would like to think about this more.
But another part of Collier’s tweaking of the definitions and boundaries of analysis is problematic to me. Clearly using her own definitions her work is different and unique. But when the next scholar comes along and remakes the boundaries and definitions then his/her work will then be different and unique. But it is not to say that it is better. Collier writes, “the definition of democracy one chooses determines the choice of episodes to be analyzed” (page 24). This raises a red flag. Does this mean that you pick your theory or definition of democracy and then go searching for those episodes that are going to prove your theory? Collier points out that one could look at the Weimar Republic as part of a process of democratization but many, including Moore, Luebbert and Ertman, would characterize this as the path to fascism. She points out that by shifting definitions and boundaries we make it difficult to compare data. Indeed I think this is true but I don’t think this means that we shouldn’t, as Collier did, challenge the definitions and boundaries that have been set out in the cannon. But the fundamental question is what do we learn or accomplish by shifting the terms of the debate? Or is this just a cover to make your work seem new and unique, because in fact it is if you shift the definitions so that it can’t be compared to anyone else’s work.
