Editing Democratization (section)

==== Social capital and civil society ====
[[File:CI boardwalk Sandy sweepers jeh.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|[[Civic engagement]], including [[volunteering]], is conducive to democratization. These volunteers are cleaning up after the 2012 [[Hurricane Sandy]].]]
[[Civil society]] refers to a collection of non-governmental organizations and institutions that advance the interests, priorities and will of citizens. [[Social capital]] refers to features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that allow individuals to act together to pursue shared objectives.<ref name=":9" />

[[Robert D. Putnam|Robert Putnam]] argues that certain characteristics make societies more likely to have cultures of civic engagement that lead to more participatory democracies. According to Putnam, communities with denser horizontal networks of [[Civic engagement|civic association]] are able to better build the "norms of trust, reciprocity, and civic engagement" that lead to democratization and well-functioning participatory democracies. By contrasting communities in Northern Italy, which had dense horizontal networks, to communities in Southern Italy, which had more vertical networks and [[Clientelism|patron-client relations]], Putnam asserts that the latter never built the culture of civic engagement that some deem as necessary for successful democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Putnam|first=Robert|date=March 1993|title=What makes democracy work?|journal=National Civic Review|volume=82|issue=2|pages=101–107|doi=10.1002/ncr.4100820204}}</ref>

[[Sheri Berman]] has rebutted Putnam's theory that civil society contributes to democratization, writing that in the case of the Weimar Republic, civil society facilitated the rise of the Nazi Party.<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal|last=Berman|first=Sheri|author-link=Sheri Berman|date=1997|title=Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic|journal=World Politics|language=en|volume=49|issue=3|pages=401–429|doi=10.1353/wp.1997.0008|s2cid=145285276|issn=1086-3338}}</ref> According to Berman, Germany's democratization after World War I allowed for a renewed development in the country's civil society; however, Berman argues that this vibrant civil society eventually weakened democracy within Germany as it exacerbated existing social divisions due to the creation of exclusionary community organizations.<ref name=":14" /> Subsequent empirical research and theoretical analysis has lent support for Berman's argument.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Satyanath|first1=Shanker|last2=Voigtländer|first2=Nico|last3=Voth|first3=Hans-Joachim|date=2017-04-01|title=Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=125|issue=2|pages=478–526|doi=10.1086/690949|s2cid=3827369|issn=0022-3808|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w19201.pdf}}</ref> Yale University political scientist Daniel Mattingly argues civil society in China helps the authoritarian regime in China to cement control.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/art-of-political-control-in-china/4FE177A409064E67DBB3D5A08081F80A|title=The Art of Political Control in China|last=Mattingly|first=Daniel C.|date=2019|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en|doi=10.1017/9781108662536|isbn=9781108662536|s2cid=213618572|access-date=2020-02-06}}</ref> Clark, M. Golder, and S. Golder also argue that despite many believing democratization requires a [[Civic political culture|civic culture]], empirical evidence produced by several reanalyses of past studies suggest this claim is only partially supported.<ref name=":12" /> [[Philippe C. Schmitter]] also asserts that the existence of civil society is not a prerequisite for the transition to democracy, but rather democratization is usually followed by the resurrection of civil society (even if it did not exist previously).<ref name=":13" />

Research indicates that democracy protests are associated with democratization. According to a study by Freedom House, in 67 countries where dictatorships have fallen since 1972, nonviolent civic resistance was a strong influence over 70 percent of the time. In these transitions, changes were catalyzed not through foreign invasion, and only rarely through armed revolt or voluntary elite-driven reforms, but overwhelmingly by democratic civil society organizations utilizing nonviolent action and other forms of civil resistance, such as strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=275 |title=Study: Nonviolent Civic Resistance Key Factor in Building Durable Democracies, May 24, 2005  |access-date=June 18, 2009 |archive-date=December 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111223135218/http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=275 }}</ref> A 2016 study found that about a quarter of all cases of democracy protests between 1989 and 2011 lead to democratization.<ref name="brancati">{{cite book|last=Brancati|first=Dawn|title=Democracy Protests: Origins, Features and Significance|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|location=Cambridge}}</ref>