HISTORY MAKING “DEMOCRATS” IN ACTION: THE REFORMERS (LEADERS IN TRANSITION ) &

1. HISTORY MAKING “DEMOCRATS” IN ACTION: THE REFORMERS (LEADERS IN TRANSITION) & THE DEMOCRACY BUILDERS (CONSOLIDATORS)

2. A BIT OF CONTEXT: WHEN DO UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES “LIBERALIZE”? Remember, most of history is about rule of dictators. What then is this “third wave” of democracy” that social scientists talk so much about? Is what’s going on in E. Europe and the Middle-East a fourth wave? What kind of social, economic, and leadership contexts allow for political leaders to pursue liberalization (as opposed to either just “window dressing change” or revolution)? Some of the key factors: Economic structure (type of production, wealth & its distribution), the changing international context, the role of civil society (as space to organize & a producer of leaders) Once started, “liberalization” typically proves to be an unstable state, and political leadership matters!

3. A BIT OF CONTEXT: WHEN DO UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES “LIBERALIZE”? What 4 types of political leaders—and the balance of power among them—seems to be essential for liberalization to occur? (Adam Przeworski ) Hardliner leaders: They prefer status quo and will take huge risks to preserve it (N. Korea, Myramar until recently). Softliner leaders (aka reformers): Prefer liberalization, but will support severe repression if power might shift to radicals. Two major types/motivations: Some reformers prefer modest changes to the status quo as a way of protecting the dictatorship (Gorbachev and DeKlerk) Others are authentic liberals who want to trick the hardliners but also don’t want a revolution (Ernesto Zedillo) Moderateopposition leaders: Prefer liberalization, but are willing to moderate demand for political change and retribution in order to get reform (Examples: MLK, Nelson Mandela as well as opposition leaders in Mexico, Brazil, Chile, & Spain) Radical leaders: Believe that fundamental change is necessary and retribution is warranted (Example: Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Lenin, Evo Morales)

5. WHO ARE REFORMERS? WHAT ARE THEIR QUALITIES? Why should we study Mikhail Gorbachev (USSR) and FW DeKlerk? What made their regimes the last places you would ever expect to have reform? Could we study other reformers (Sure: Mexico and perhaps one day Israel) Why does political reform frequently come where it’s least expected? Reformists aren’t necessarily committed reformers early on… which is why they are able to get into key, well-connected positions that can only be held by loyalists.Examples: Gorbachev in the Communist Party; DeKlerk’s in the Nationalist Party What abilities allow some types of political leaders to pursue reform successfully? Would-be reformers have vision, which is why they are accepted by hardliners to be transitional leaders. They are the leaders most trusted to navigate the ship through tough times; they also are excellent at public relations

6. WHO ARE REFORMERS? WHAT ARE THEIR QUALITIES? When do transitional leaders become major reformers? (Or conversely, why do so few transitional leaders become political reformers?) Reformers don’t have to go profound transformations in personality to become advocates of change. Instead, they have to be willing to see and follow a logical path over time (which is why they don’t get tossed out by hardliners)… They must be the type of leader who absorbs and acts on new information In both Russia and South Africa illness allowed an unexpected opening for these well organized leaders to win power at a critical time (the same is true with Mexico’s Ernesto Zedillo, incidentally) In both places, most influential elites accepted that change had to happen. USSR (military spending pressures) and S. Africa (trade) needed reform if the dominant systems were to survive Outside pressures gave alternative sources of legitimacy to these leaders’ actions

7. WHAT DO REFORMERS DO? They dismantle ruling ideologies from within and outside. And they do so very publicly so that middle-level elites ust choose the past or the future Gorbachev vs. Marxist-Leninism as practiced (Perestroika, Glasnost, “New thinking” in foreign policy) DeKlerk vs. Apartheid They seek out and empower opponents on the other side: They are experts at overcoming “attribution” problems and identifying reliable partners on the other side who can deliver DeKlerk looked inward to Mandela and then outward for legitimacy Gorbachev at first looked outward to Reagan and Thatcher; then inward to Boris Yeltsin

8. WHAT DO REFORMERS DO? They are extremely nimble in decision-making: They avoid group think, and historical fallacies. They are uniquely able to see and have hope for what is possible. They are over confident in their own staying power so they take personal risks. They stay with the process until the bitter end… making a clear break with the past possible. They frequently contest power in the new regime rather than going quietly into the night. They are critical in creating a “loyal” opposition and giving organizational space to those who have been pushed out They continue to work personal relationships with the opposition and seek outside legitimacy to stop persecution of those who previously served with them.

9. WHAT KIND OF LEADERS CONSOLIDATE DEMOCRACIES THAT WILL LAST? Very rarely are they the same reformers who initiated change from the old system Democratic state builders are philosopher kings of a sort: They are willing to stay and build institutions that will endure beyond them These leaders build up civil society even when doing so makes it harder to govern They are confident enough to share power and to institutionalize power sharing within government; they bring all critical power-brokers to the table They are macro-thinkers. They play to win over the long run, not the moment. Most important: These leaders accept political defeat of their programs and protégés (the Federalists, Mexico’s Vicente Fox; Brazil’s Fernando Cardoso) These leaders usually know when to walk away and especially when to be quiet. Not true with India’s Nehru, but especially true of Washington and South Africa’s Mandela These leaders eschew personality cults and father of nation status that would make power exchanges problematic (the US vs. Latin America; Africa vs. India)