Politics and Democracy in Microstates

Wouter Veenendaal

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138792593
• eBook ISBN: 9781317646570
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Why are small states statistically more likely to have a democratic political system? By addressing this question from a qualitative and comparative methodological angle, this book analyses the effects of a small population size on political competition and participation. By comparing the four microstates of San Marino (Europe), St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean), Seychelles (Africa), and Palau (Oceania), it provides fresh and stimulating insight, concluding that the political dynamics of microstates are not as democratic as commonly believed. Instead, it is found in all four cases that smallness results in personalistic politics, dominance of the political executive, patron-client relations between citizens and politicians, and the circumvention of formal political institutions. In addition, the book suggests that the study of formal institutions provides an incomplete image of microstate democracy and that informal characteristics of politics in microstates also need to be explored in order to better explain the influence of smallness on democracy.

This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of democracy, democratization, regional and decentralization studies and comparative politics.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315761909-1

What this book is about

According to several recent publications, small states or microstates are comparatively more likely to have a democratic system of government than larger states (Diamond and Tsalik 1999; Anckar 2002; Srebrnik 2004 ). Based on the data of aggregate indices of democracy such as Freedom House, large-N quantitative analyses have disclosed a statistically significant negative correlation between population size and democracy. Although a satisfactory explanation of this pattern has not yet been found, the argument that a limited population size fosters good governance, republicanism, and freedom was formulated by the ancient Greek philosophers, and is therefore part of one of the most ancient debates in political science. The finding that microstates from around the globe are exceptionally likely to develop and maintain democratic systems of government appears to validate such centuries-old theories about the political consequences of size. In addition, not only has the average population size of countries continuously been decreasing since the late nineteenth century (Lake and O’Mahony 2004 ), but more and more states have initiated programs of decentralization and devolution of powers and competences to smaller, subnational units. This unmistakable trend towards smaller polities and administrations is buttressed by publications that emphasize the virtues and advantages of smallness (Schumacher 1973; Katzenstein 1985; Weldon 2006; Congdon Fors 2013 ).

Whereas the argument that ‘small is democratic’ (Ott 2000 ) hence now prevails in the literature, there are also studies that point in another direction. Relying less on formal political structures and large-N databases, the available case studies of politics in small states primarily highlight the intense personal rivalries, corruption, patron–client relationships, and social pressure and intimidation that supposedly undergird small state politics. According to some of these studies the democratic institutions of microstates are largely a façade, beyond which a much harsher and less democratic – if not dictatorial – reality can be identified (Peters 1992; Baldacchino 2012 ). It is obvious that these case studies are basically incompatible with the more dominant quantitative literature that was described before. In order to avoid the limited focus on formal structures as well as the idiosyncrasies and lack of generalizability that characterize case studies, this book offers a small-N comparative approach that is based on in-depth analyses of four microstates around the globe. Using Dahl’s twin dimensions of contestation and inclusiveness as a framework to conceptualize democracy (1971), on the basis of field research in San Marino, St. Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, and Palau the image that follows from the case study literature is largely confirmed. Due to the fact that similar political patterns are identified in microstates that otherwise are as different as possible on virtually all background factors, many of the outcomes of the analysis can be viewed as (generalizable) political effects of size.

The exclusion of microstates in the academic literature

In comparative political research, the smallest countries in the world are mostly excluded. Although there are significant differences with regard to the threshold that scholars apply to exclude small states, almost all publications in this field employ a cut-off point that results in the elimination of microstates.¹ In Samuel Huntington’s seminal work The Third Wave, for example, all countries with fewer than one million inhabitants are excluded (1991 : 43), and in Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy no countries with fewer than a quarter of a million people are analyzed (1999 : 52). Even though the resulting number and proportion of excluded states may be quite high, many scholars do not provide any motivation or justification for their decision to leave out microstates. The academics that do give explanations for excluding small states often rely on somewhat questionable or unconvincing reasons. From a scientific perspective it seems hard to think of any persuasive rationalization that would justify the omission of a large group of cases, especially in light of the broadly recognized view that all available observations and cases (or a representative sample of these) should be analyzed in order to avoid selection bias. The generalizability and applicability of comparative political studies to small states can be questioned if no small states are included in these analyses in the first place.

A survey of the most well-known and renowned publications in the field of comparative politics, democracy, and democratization demonstrates that a variety of reasons are applied to exclude microstates. Among the most recurrent and prominent motivations are:

1. that microstates represent only a tiny proportion of the world’s population (e.g., Moore 1995 : 7);
2. that microstates are not “real” or fully independent states (e.g., Vanhanen 1997 : 61);
3. that other authors in this academic field exclude microstates as well (e.g., Lijphart 1999 : 52);
4. that there is a structural lack of data on microstates (e.g., Powell 1984 : 4).

The first of these arguments alludes to the relative insignificance of microstates, and scholars who refer to this reason often also mention the fact that microstates are unknown to the larger public. If the overall aim of comparative political research is, however, to increase our knowledge by comparing different political systems, it is not clear why the number of people that a system serves should be a factor of significance. In terms of scientific value, each case, no matter how small, can yield new insights into the workings of politics. As a matter of fact, it could actually be argued that more knowledge can be acquired by examining contemporarily understudied cases, instead of those that we already know much about.

The second argument for microstate exclusion can be seen as an attempt to set these cases apart from other states, by denying them the classification as a state. The validity of this argument is dependent on the specific definition of a “state” that is employed. On this point, microstates, however, relatively easily meet the most common criteria of statehood;² all of them have a certain territory and population, and all (being UN members) are recognized as sovereign states by other states. According to Tatu Vanhanen, microstates are excluded from his study because “the nature of their political institutions may depend more on foreign support than on domestic factors” (1997 : 61). This hypothesis is, however, not subjected to any empirical test, and even if it were true the question remains whether this does not also apply to many larger states, and why it would be a decisive factor in the first place.

The third and fourth justifications for microstate exclusion are related to each other, in the sense that the application of them actually contributes to the problem that the fourth argument refers to. In his book, Lijphart for example argues that:

In comparative analyses of democracy, the smallest and least populous ministates are usually excluded; the cutoff point tends to vary between populations of one million and of a quarter of a million. Here, too, I opted to be inclusive by selecting the lower cutoff point.

(Lijphart 1999 : 52)

Although the initial reason for selecting any cut-off point is not made explicit in this reasoning, it is likely to result from a lack of data. In similar fashion, the lack of data argument might elucidate Huntington’s explanation that “[b]ecause of their small size they [i.e., microstates] are, unless stated to the contrary, excluded from analyses of third wave countries in this study” (Huntington 1991 : 43). Whereas it is true that there is a structural lack of data on microstates, it can be asserted that this is primarily a consequence of the fact that earlier studies and databases excluded these countries, and it appears that this pattern can only be reversed if future studies decide to pay attention to this group of countries as well.

The exclusion of microstates potentially creates another problem_ it introduces biases in the existing analyses. In global comparative studies that exclude microstates, a regional bias can be identified due to the clustering of microstates in two world regions: the Caribbean and Oceania.³ In addition, however, precisely because so little is known about microstates, it is at present largely unclear to what extent their political systems differ from those of larger states. This may be especially problematic for studies that aim to assess worldwide patterns of democracy and democratization, since the results of these analyses could be distorted as a result of microstate exclusion. Finally, perhaps the most serious downside of the fact that microstates are so under-researched is the lack of knowledge about the operation of politics on a small scale at the national level. Precisely on this issue, there is, however, increasing evidence suggesting that microstates are different from larger states, in the sense that they appear to be significantly more likely to develop and maintain a democratic system of government.

Statistics on democracy in microstates

As mentioned before, in recent years several publications have highlighted the statistical association between smallness and democracy (e.g., Hadenius 1992 : 123–126; Diamond and Tsalik 1999 : 117–119; Ott 2000 : 115–121; Anckar 2002 : 377; 2010 : 1–2; Srebrnik 2004 : 330–332).⁴ In Table 1.1 all UN member states have been classified according to their population size⁵ and Freedom House ranking in 2013 (Freedom House 2013 ). Concerning population size, the countries have been grouped into progressively smaller categories, ranging from countries with fewer than five million inhabitants to countries with fewer than 100,000 citizens. In the table, the statistical association between population size and democracy is clearly visible: the smaller the population size, the greater the proportion of “free” countries. Whereas less than 45 percent of all 193 UN member states can be classified as free, this figure rises to almost 60 percent when only the eighty...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The theoretical debate on size and democracy: from Plato to the present
• 3 Theoretical model and research design: concepts, cases, and methods
• 4 The Republic of San Marino: Antica Terra della Libertà
• 5 The Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis: politics or politricks?
• 6 The Republic of Seychelles: En Nouvo Sesel?
• 7 The Republic of Palau: Ngelekel Belau
• 8 Conclusion: the political effects of smallness
• Appendix: list of interviews
• Index