Small is Democratic

An Examination of State Size and Democratic Development

Dana Ott

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367604974
• eBook ISBN: 9781317775638
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the relationship between state size and the formation and maintenance of democratic political systems. Using a cross-national, multiple case study of The Gambia in West Africa, and Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, in combination with a quantitative data set on all the nations in the world, the study examines the effects of smallness, when measured by population size, on a number of variables including the probability of becoming and remaining democratic, access to information, political instability and political violence. The dissertation argues that the small scale social structure which is prevalent in small states directly affects the social interaction of individuals in these states through the multiple-role relationships created as a consequence; and indirectly affects the political and economic systems of these states through the impact of such social networks on political interaction, etc. The case studies examine the effects of smallness on two states that, aside from being small and democratic, share few background characteristics. It is argued that small state size acts as an enabling environment for democratization, increasing the likelihood that such states will become and remain democratic, as occurred in Trinidad and Tobago. The case of The Gambia illustrates the limitations of smallness to overcome other obstacles to democratization including economic, social, and systemic limitations. The quantitative analysis establishes a significant statistical relationship between small state size, when measured by population, and the formation and maintenance of political democracy, and an increased likelihood of political violence, when measured by political riots and deaths by political violence. The analysis concludes with a discussion of the implications of such findings, including transferability through the application of targeted decentralization programs.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Small States in the Global Arena

As of 1991, small states (generally defined as those with population under 5 million) comprised over fifty percent of the nations of the world (Rand McNally 1992:2). They can be found in every region of the world, represent a range of economic and political systems, and constitute almost half the votes in the General Assembly of the United Nations.¹ The number of small states, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all the nations of the world continues to grow for several reasons, as a result of partitioning from larger states (such as Eritrea), as the last vestiges of colonial influence wane (such as in Palau), and as a consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Union (such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and Yugoslavia (Macedonia). However, the literature on the experiences of small states has not kept pace with their growing numbers. Much of the research that has been conducted on small states in the last half-century has focused on the question of survival: that is, whether small states can survive as independent political entities in a world dominated by larger states. Given that small states now constitute nearly half the population of existing states, combined with a change in geo-politics from a bi-polar to a uni-polar world, this question of survival appears to have less relevance than in the past.

As the number of small states has grown, more recent studies have begun to focus on specific policy areas of concern to small states such as public administration or foreign affairs. This body of research suggests that significant differences exist between small and large state behavior, at least in those areas. The narrow focus of many comparative studies of large and small states has precluded the development of comprehensive hypotheses that explain why small states are different from large states, (as evidenced by those studies), and what the implications of such differences are for small states generally. Although an explanation of such magnitude is beyond the scope of this study, some attention is given to this question within the context of an examination of the differences between small and large states in the area of democratization, specifically the formation and maintenance of democratic political systems. Drawing on the findings of the literature about the effects of smallness on broader components of the state such as the social system, this analysis links those earlier efforts to the current research question. In so doing, two goals are accomplished: first, the empirical verification of a small state/large state difference with regard to a specific policy area, and second, the extension of existing knowledge about small states into an area of global import: namely democratization.

The concept of democracy as the almost universally preferred political system is a rather new phenomenon in world politics. Although existing democratic states such as the United States and Great Britain have always argued the superiority of the democratic political system to perform essential functions such as the allocation of values, during the Cold War it was possible to make the case for an alternative allocation system (namely communism) which performed those allocation functions differently, but equally well. Since the collapse of communism in the 1990’s, it has become increasingly difficult to define a viable alternative allocation system, although attempts have been made to hold up both the Islamic political structure and the Singaporean authoritarian model as possibilities. Neither of these models has achieved widespread recognition as yet however, leaving democracy as the sole “alternative” for newly developing states.

As Huntington (1991) has observed, since the mid-1970’s there has been a “third wave” of democratization taking place around the world, which has been accelerated by the collapse of the former Soviet Union:

The movement toward democracy in Portugal in 1974 and 1975 was dramatic but not unique. Less obvious democratic stirrings were occurring elsewhere...During the following fifteen years this democratic wave became global in scope; about thirty countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, and at least a score of other countries were affected by the democratic wave (Huntington 1991:5).

Huntington argues that the spread of democracy is more than merely an interesting academic phenomenon, that it has several important consequences. He argues that as a result of global democratization, individuals will have more personal freedom, the world as a whole will be more stable, and there is likely to be far less international conflict (Huntington 1991:28-29). It is therefore in the interest of established democracies to promote the process of democratization in the other states of the world. Many studies appear to support the linkage between democracy and lack of inter-state conflict.²

Interestingly, most analyses of the effects of state size on behavior or outcomes have tended to emphasize the limitations that size imposes on the ability of the state to function competitively in the political and economic arena. State size, when it is small, is generally held to be a weakness or deficiency, affecting a state’s behavior much in the same fashion that lack of natural resources might affect a state’s productive capacity. These analyses have thus tended to offer correspondingly dire predictions and warnings about the “vulnerability of small states,” (Vital 1967) the “viability of small states” (UNITAR 1971) or the position of the “micro state in a macro world” (Harden 1985). On the basis of the existing literature on small states, one would expect to find a group of political and economic basket cases - vulnerable to external and internal instability, bobbing in the wake of the international economic climate, ruled by personalistic and despotic leaders relying on their ability to dominate totally their societies to maintain control. Interestingly, no such consensus exists on the effects of small size on the prospects for democratization. The literature offers disparate interpretations of the impact of smallness. Historical political theorists (such as Aristotle and Rousseau) argued that the opportunities for direct political interaction that were available to citizens of smaller states made such states ideal candidates for democracy. Dahl & Tufte (1973), in their analyses of smallness and democratization, argued that there was no compelling evidence that smallness had any measurable positive or negative effects on democratization. Peters (1992), argues that while many small states have the formal institutions of democracy (parliaments, elections, etc.), these states are so vulnerable to personalistic influences that they are not really democratic at all.

Thus, the purpose of this analysis is twofold: to determine if smallness has a measurable effect on the formation and maintenance of democracy, and to determine if those effects are generally negative or positive, and their implications for small state political development.

As recent events in the area that was Yugoslavia, in Eritrea, and many of the former Soviet states have shown, the community of small states is likely to continue to expand, and to try to implement democratic political systems. The lack of conclusive information about the effects of state size on the process of democratization specifically and political development generally warrants the examination of those relationships.

Critics of such an analysis might raise two objections: first, that attributing or differentiating political or other consequences in a state to its physical size overlooks the unique historical and cultural development influences in an individual state, potentially resulting in an incomplete or flawed analysis. Second, that smallness per se may not be the important causal or correlational variable to democracy in those states, but merely an intervening variable or approximation of another, distinct concept. These are valid concerns and are addressed below.

First, in the context of this analysis, “smallness” is used to illustrate tendencies within the political, social and economic systems in small states, rather than as an explanatory model of behavior. The goal is to differentiate the political behavior and outcomes of small and large states by explaining the unique effects of smallness on political development. This is accomplished through a dual approach: a combination of an empirical data set and a multiple case study. The data set illustrates trends for small states as a complete group generally, while the multiple case study allows for the introduction of relevant information, such as historical or other state specific variables, at the level of two individual states, making the overall analysis more comprehensive and more reflective of the level of importance of smallness as opposed to other relevant factors.

Second, state size could be used as a proxy for any number of other measures, such as pool of human resources, natural resources, size of the economy (usually) and so forth. However, those other measures are all fairly easy to operationalize and do not always “fit” with state size. For example, small states usually have small resource bases, but there are several (such as the Gulf states) which have substantial natural resources. While the size of an economy is usually associated with the size of a country, there are notable exceptions such as Singapore.

This analysis argues that smallness acts as a proxy for the multiple-role relationships in small states that profoundly affect political and social behavior. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, but essentially, small state size (when defined in terms of population) is the best operationalization of the concept of a small scale social structure. In other words, it is argued that the small scale social structure of small states affects their political development and produces distinct outcomes in these states from the political development process in larger states.

In choosing to focus on the formation and maintenance of democracy in small states, there were a number of issues that required consideration. First, the conceptualization of democracy employed in this analysis needed to be both empirically measurable and easily comparable among large numbers of states. This was to allow the use of statistical analyses to compare the levels of democracy in large and small states. Currently, no quantitative (or qualitative) studies have been conducted on democratization which include all the small countries in the world. In fact, many analyses deliberately omit countries under one million population from their analyses, usually citing lack of data as their justification.³ As a result, there exists no definitive evidence about whether small states are more or less likely to be democratic than large states. Second, there was a need to address the shortcomings of previous studies of small states which have generally ignored the issue of democracy and the implications of smallness for democracy in those states, despite evidence that small states are different from large states in measurable ways. Finally, the ability to define more explicitly those components of smallness that promote democratization may provide information that is applicable in a wider variety of cases. If smallness is shown to be a positive influence on democratization, it could be argued that duplication of those elements of “smallness” which are significant in a larger state structure might increase the probability of democracy in those in larger states. This could be accomplished by emulating the social structure in small states through methods such as greater formal decentralization in large states. If smallness were negatively associated with democratization, then efforts could focus on overcoming those aspects of smallness considered detrimental to the democratization process.

Whether small states are found to be more or less likely than large states to be democratic and respectful of human rights, there are several broader implications of such a finding. One major impact would be on the conceptualization and application of bilateral and multilateral democracy promotion programs, and potentially to the issue of the relevance of decentralization in larger states for the promotion of democratic development. Understanding those elements of small states that affect the formation and maintenance of democracy allows external actors, such as aid agencies and other partners in development, to tailor their programs to reflect the different needs of small states in light of the increasing focus of international aid organizations on the promotion of democratization through foreign aid policy in the post-Cold War era. The growing emphasis of US Agency for International Development on the necessity of democratic reform as a condition of continued aid is just one example. The statement of USAID policy on Democracy and Governance issued in 1991 reflects the shift in focus:

For much of the past 45 years, U.S. international relations have largely been focused on containing Soviet expansion. This was often the single most important consideration in America’s dealings with other countries. Now, however, this basic organizing principle is less relevant. With this fundamental change, the United States has new opportunities to strengthen and support the global trend toward more democratic societies...The 1990 USAID Mission Statement was developed in response to this changing world (USAID 1991:4).

More generally, with the large number of newly independent states (particularly in Eastern Europe), the ability of both external organizations and national governments to more specifically target sub-groups (such as small states) with customized programs increases the likelihood of success of those democratization plans.

Additionally, if the purpose of decentralization programs is to create greater governability by bringing the government back to the level of the people (and creating smaller social and political sub-units), then this analysis also contributes to the existing literature on the validity of such programs by examining the impact of smaller political units on democratic development.

For small states themselves, understanding the effects of state size structure that affect the likelihood of democratic development increases the knowledge base of those small states trying to democratize about potentially negative or positive effects, and thus increases their probability of successful democratization. Many of the states that are in the process of democratizing (both new and old) are small states. Yet little consideration has been given to the unique problems small states face in both the process of democratizing and in the daily struggle to maintain a democratic system. Of particular relevance for small states are questions of internal and external vulnerability and their effects on democracy in these states. In order to explore fully the issues related to democracy and smallness, there are four main questions that guide this analysis:

• What impact, if any, does smallness have on the political development of states - specifically on the formation of democratic political systems?
• What impact, if any, does smallness have on the maintenance of democratic political systems?
• What are the implications of the effects of smallness for the strategies of small states trying to democratize or maintain democracy?
• What are the implications of such findings for the policies of international organizations concerned with the promotion and maintenance of democratic development in these states?

This study attempts to provide answers to these questions through a reexamination of state size as an important influence on political development outcomes in the state. The theoretical focus is on the role of the social system in small states and the structural repercussions of the special construction of that system in small states for the political systems of those states.

Some attention is also given to the economic consequences of smallness for several reasons. Aside from the physical consequences of smallness for economic development (which have already been discussed in the literature at some length), there are significant political implications of the size of a state’s economy which must be considered. These will be analyzed in greater detail in Chapter 4, but briefly, there are two main political consequences of economic smallness that should be considered. First, economic growth and development, and democratization are processes that are inextricably linked. Some have argued that economic development is a necessary precondition for democracy, such as Lipset (1959), and more recently Hadenius (1992), Bollen & Jackman (1985), and Rueschemeyer, Stephens & Stephens (1992) (who see capitalism as a catalyst for democratization), while others argue that it is democracy which promotes economic growth, such as Sirowy & Inkeles (1990). Chapter 3 provides a more comprehensive discussion of this literature. Whether it is economic development that promotes democracy or vice versa may not yet be clear, but it has been consistently shown that there is a substantive connection between the two processes, no matter in which direction the causal arrows are pointing. A recent article by Moore (1995) argues that while the relationship between democracy and economic growth is not clear:

In so far as there is a causal linkage between democr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1 Introduction: Small States in the Global Arena
• 2 Small is Beautiful: Theories of Small State Behavior
• 3 Power to the People: Theories of Democratic Development
• 4 The Practical Consequences of Smallness: The Theoretical Model
• 5 State Size, Regime Type and Political Protest: Findings of the Analysis
• 6 The Gambia and Trinidad & Tobago: Smallness in Action
• 7 Small States in the Globalizing State System: Observations and Conclusions
• Appendix: Tables and Figures
• Bibliography
• Index