Comparison of linkages in regimes characterized by a dense civil society and democratic stability
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
[In the twentieth century, many scholars linked a country’s ability to maintain democratic stability with the presence of a strong civil society. However, a dense civil society does not have automatic stability. Civil society comprises organizations and groups that exist outside government. These organizations’ primary purpose is to represent and advocate for citizens’ interests. Civil society also promotes engagement by exposing less politically active individuals to current events, thereby enhancing political leaders’ accountability. The public sphere creates spaces for dialogue within a society. The Great Depression affected democracies and heightened polarization. Fragmentation of the political sphere in Weimar left the state vulnerable to extremism. By contrast, Sweden focused on maintaining strong channels of communication between political parties and unions to promote stability. In the UK, market-first reforms also loosened these channels, allowing Leave leaders to mobilize them. In light of these previous cases, density does not guarantee stability. Democratic stability depends less on the density of civil society and more on the degree to which the public sphere is integrated.]