Editing Democratization (section)

==== Classes, cleavages and alliances  ====
[[File:Reeve and Serfs.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Theorists such as Barrington Moore Jr. argued that the roots of democratization could be found in the relationship between lords and peasants in agrarian societies.]]
Sociologist [[Barrington Moore Jr.]], in his influential [[Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy]] (1966), argues that the distribution of power among classes – the peasantry, the bourgeoise and the landed aristocracy – and the nature of alliances between classes determined whether democratic, authoritarian or communist revolutions occurred.<ref>{{cite book|title=Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world|last=Moore|first=Barrington Jr.|publisher=[[Beacon Press]]|year=1993|isbn=978-0-8070-5073-6|edition=with a new foreword by Edward Friedman and James C. Scott|location=Boston|page=430|author-link=Barrington Moore, Jr.|orig-date=1966}}</ref> Moore also argued there were at least "three routes to the modern world" – the liberal democratic, the fascist, and the communist – each deriving from the timing of industrialization and the social structure at the time of transition. Thus, Moore challenged modernization theory, by stressing that there was not one path to the modern world and that economic development did not always bring about democracy.<ref>Jørgen Møller, ''State Formation, Regime Change, and Economic Development''. London: Routledge Press, 2017, Ch. 6.</ref>

Many authors have questioned parts of Moore's arguments. Dietrich Rueschemeyer, [[Evelyne Huber|Evelyne Stephens]], and John D. Stephens, in ''Capitalist Development and Democracy'' (1992), raise questions about Moore's analysis of the role of the bourgeoisie in democratization.<ref>Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. ''Capitalist Development and Democracy.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> Eva Bellin argues that under certain circumstances, the bourgeoise and labor are more likely to favor democratization, but less so under other circumstances.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bellin|first=Eva|date=January 2000|title=Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late-Developing Countries|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=52|issue=2|pages=175–205|doi=10.1017/S0043887100002598|s2cid=54044493|issn=1086-3338}}</ref> Samuel Valenzuela argues that, counter to Moore's view, the landed elite supported democratization in Chile.<ref>J. Samuel Valenzuela, 2001. "Class Relations and Democratization: A Reassessment of Barrington Moore's Model", pp. 240–86, in Miguel Angel Centeno and Fernando López-Alves (eds.), The Other Mirror: Grand Theory Through the Lens of Latin America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.</ref> A comprehensive assessment conducted by James Mahoney concludes that "Moore's specific hypotheses about democracy and authoritarianism receive only limited and highly conditional support."<ref>James Mahoney, "Knowledge Accumulation in Comparative Historical Research: The Case of Democracy and Authoritarianism," pp. 131–74, in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), ''Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences.'' New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 145. For an earlier review of a wide range of critical response to ''Social Origins'', see Jon Wiener, "Review of Reviews: ''Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy''", ''History and Theory'' 15 (1976), 146–75.</ref>

A 2020 study linked democratization to the [[Mechanised agriculture|mechanization of agriculture]]: as landed elites became less reliant on the repression of agricultural workers, they became less hostile to democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Samuels|first1=David J.|last2=Thomson|first2=Henry|date=2020|title=Lord, Peasant … and Tractor? Agricultural Mechanization, Moore's Thesis, and the Emergence of Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/lord-peasant-and-tractor-agricultural-mechanization-moores-thesis-and-the-emergence-of-democracy/0D322FCC606F75D44D9446358F3B9690/share/fa7c5e053c9936ef179231a40604b88d8eac9957|journal=Perspectives on Politics|volume=19|issue=3|language=en|pages=739–753|doi=10.1017/S1537592720002303|s2cid=225466533|issn=1537-5927|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

According to political scientist [[David Stasavage]], representative government is "more likely to occur when a society is divided across multiple political cleavages."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/public-debt-and-the-birth-of-the-democratic-state/9995D18B9CC015BA69C37133E44DDE23|title=Public Debt and the Birth of the Democratic State: France and Great Britain 1688–1789|author1-link=David Stasavage|last=Stasavage|first=David|date=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511510557|access-date=2019-12-24|isbn=9780521809672}}</ref> A 2021 study found that constitutions that emerge through pluralism (reflecting distinct segments of society) are more likely to induce liberal democracy (at least, in the short term).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Negretto|first1=Gabriel L.|last2=Sánchez-Talanquer|first2=Mariano|date=2021|title=Constitutional Origins and Liberal Democracy: A Global Analysis, 1900–2015|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/constitutional-origins-and-liberal-democracy-a-global-analysis-19002015/AD138F031B07119CBEF099B8879FB888|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=115|issue=2|pages=522–536|doi=10.1017/S0003055420001069|hdl=10016/39537 |s2cid=232422425|issn=0003-0554|via=|hdl-access=free}}</ref>