Editing Democracy (section)

===Democratization===
{{Main|Democratization}}
{{Excerpt|Democratization|only=paragraph|hat=no}}

Several philosophers and researchers have outlined historical and social factors seen as supporting the evolution of democracy. Other commentators have mentioned the influence of economic development.<ref>For example: {{Cite journal|doi=10.2307/1951731|author=Lipset, Seymour Martin.|s2cid=53686238|year=1959|title=Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=53|issue=1|pages=69–105|jstor=1951731}}</ref> In a related theory, [[Ronald Inglehart]] suggests that improved living-standards in modern developed countries can convince people that they can take their basic survival for granted, leading to increased emphasis on [[self-expression values]], which correlates closely with democracy.<ref>Inglehart, Ronald. Welzel, Christian ''Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence'', 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Inglehart|first1=Ronald F.|title=Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World|date=2018|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108613880|isbn=978-1-108-61388-0}}</ref>

Douglas M. Gibler and Andrew Owsiak in their study argued about the importance of peace and stable borders for the development of democracy. It has often been assumed that [[democratic peace theory|democracy causes peace]], but this study shows that, historically, peace has almost always predated the establishment of democracy.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gibler|first1=Douglas M.|last2=Owsiak|first2=Andrew|title=Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919–2001|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=62|issue=9|pages=1847–75|date=2017|doi=10.1177/0022002717708599|s2cid=158036471}}</ref>

[[Carroll Quigley]] concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:<ref>Foreword, written by historian [http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml Harry J Hogan] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130901040610/http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml |date= 1 September 2013}} in 1982, to Quigley's ''Weapons Systems and Political Stability''</ref><ref>see also Chester G Starr, Review of ''Weapons Systems and Political Stability'', American Historical Review, Feb 1984, p. 98, available at [http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/Review-of-Weapons-Systems-Political-Stability-Starr.htm carrollquigley.net]</ref> Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain and use.<ref name="Quigley1983-38" /> By the 1800s, guns were the best personal weapons available, and in the United States of America (already nominally democratic), almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments could not do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.<ref name="Quigley1983-38" /> Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and democracy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Carroll Quigley|title=Weapons systems and political stability: a history|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ|access-date=20 May 2013|year=1983|publisher=University Press of America|isbn=978-0-8191-2947-5|page=307}}</ref>

Other theories stressed the relevance of [[education]] and of [[human capital]]—and within them of [[intelligence|cognitive ability]] to increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Glaeser|first1=E.|last2=Ponzetto|first2=G.|last3=Shleifer|first3=A.|year=2007|title=Why does democracy need education?|url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27867132|journal=Journal of Economic Growth|volume=12|issue=2|pages=77–99|doi=10.1007/s10887-007-9015-1|access-date=3 July 2017}}</ref>{{request quotation|date=August 2018}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Deary|first1=I.J.|last2=Batty|first2=G.D.|last3=Gale|first3=C.R.|year=2008|title=Bright children become enlightened adults|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8896064/bright_children_become_enlightened_adults.pdf|journal=Psychological Science|volume=19|issue=1|pages=1–6|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02036.x|pmid=18181782|s2cid=21297949|hdl=20.500.11820/a86dbef4-60eb-44fa-add3-513841cdf81b|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>Compare: {{cite journal|last1=Rindermann|first1=H|year=2008|title=Relevance of education and intelligence for the political development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty|journal=Intelligence|volume=36|issue=4|pages=306–22|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003|quote=Political theory has described a positive linkage between education, cognitive ability and democracy. This assumption is confirmed by positive correlations between education, cognitive ability, and positively valued political conditions (N = 183–130). [...] It is shown that in the second half of the 20th century, education and intelligence had a strong positive impact on democracy, rule of law and political liberty independent from wealth (GDP) and chosen country sample. One possible mediator of these relationships is the attainment of higher stages of moral judgment fostered by cognitive ability, which is necessary for the function of democratic rules in society. The other mediators for citizens as well as for leaders could be the increased competence and willingness to process and seek information necessary for political decisions due to greater cognitive ability. There are also weaker and less stable reverse effects of the rule of law and political freedom on cognitive ability.}}</ref>
* a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information-processing)
* an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence.

Evidence consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Statistical analyses have challenged [[modernisation theory]] by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Albertus|first1=Michael|first2=Victor|last2=Menaldo|s2cid=153949862|title=Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratisation|journal=Comparative Politics|volume=44|issue=2|year=2012|pages=151–69|doi=10.5129/001041512798838003}}</ref> In fact, empirical evidence shows that economic growth and education may not lead to increased demand for democratization as modernization theory suggests: historically, most countries attained high levels of access to primary education well before transitioning to democracy.<ref name="Paglayan 179–198">{{Cite journal|last=Paglayan|first=Agustina S.|date=February 2021|title=The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=115|issue=1|pages=179–198|doi=10.1017/S0003055420000647|issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref> Rather than acting as a catalyst for democratization, in some situations education provision may instead be used by non-democratic regimes to indoctrinate their subjects and strengthen their power.<ref name="Paglayan 179–198"/>

The assumed link between education and economic growth is called into question when analyzing empirical evidence. Across different countries, the correlation between education attainment and math test scores is very weak (.07). A similarly weak relationship exists between per-pupil expenditures and math competency (.26). Additionally, historical evidence suggests that average human capital (measured using literacy rates) of the masses does not explain the onset of industrialization in France from 1750 to 1850 despite arguments to the contrary.<ref>Squicciarini, Mara and Voigtländer, Nico, Knowledge Elites and Modernization: Evidence from Revolutionary France (October 2016). NBER Working Paper No. w22779, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2861711</ref> Together, these findings show that education does not always promote human capital and economic growth as is generally argued to be the case. Instead, the evidence implies that education provision often falls short of its expressed goals, or, alternatively, that political actors use education to promote goals other than economic growth and development.

Some scholars have searched for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic.<ref>{{cite book|title=Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy|last1=Acemoglu|first1=Daron|author-link1=Daron Acemoglu|first2=James A.|last2=Robinson|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-85526-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.plawlotic.com/?p=102|title=Rainfall and Democracy}}</ref>

An example of this is the disease environment. Places with different mortality rates had different populations and productivity levels around the world. For example, in Africa, the [[tsetse fly]]—which afflicts humans and livestock—reduced the ability of Africans to plough the land. This made Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was less concentrated.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Alsan, Marcella|doi=10.1257/aer.20130604|url=https://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924201234/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf|archive-date=2015-09-24|url-status=live|year=2015|title=The Effect of the TseTse Fly on African Development|journal=American Economic Review|volume=105|issue=1|pages=382–410|citeseerx=10.1.1.1010.2955}}</ref> This also affected the colonial institutions European countries established in Africa.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Acemoglu, Daron|author2=Johnson, Simon|author3=Robinson, James|year=2005|chapter=Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth|title=Handbook of Economic Growth|volume=1|pages=385–472, Sections 1 to 4|doi=10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3|isbn=978-0-444-52041-8}}</ref> Whether colonial settlers could live or not in a place made them develop different institutions which led to different economic and social paths. This also affected the distribution of power and the collective actions people could take. As a result, some African countries ended up having democracies and others [[autocracies]].

An example of geographical determinants for democracy is having access to coastal areas and rivers. This natural endowment has a positive relation with economic development thanks to the benefits of [[trade]].<ref>Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey Sachs, and John L. Gallup. (1999). [http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/pubs/024.pdf "Climate, Water Navigability, and Economic Development"]. Working Paper.</ref> Trade brought economic development, which in turn, broadened power. Rulers wanting to increase revenues had to protect property-rights to create incentives for people to invest. As more people had more power, more concessions had to be made by the ruler and in many{{quantify|date=August 2018}} places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society moving the balance of political power.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Acemoglu, Daron|author2=Johnson, Simon|author3=Robinson, James|year=2005|chapter=Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth|title=Handbook of Economic Growth|volume=1|pages=385–472, Sections 5 to 10|doi=10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3|isbn=978-0-444-52041-8}}</ref>

Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully realised, democracy may be developed automatically in the act of striving for democracy:

<blockquote>The peasant in the fable, when on his deathbed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the fable may well symbolise democracy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Robert Michels|title=Political Parties|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ijae_UIez38C|access-date=5 June 2013|date=1999|orig-year=1962 by [[Collier's|Crowell-Collier]]|publisher=[[Transaction Publishers]]|isbn=978-1-4128-3116-1|page=243}}</ref></blockquote>

Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government from a non-democratic state is typically brought by peaceful or violent [[democratic revolution]].