Non-Violent Resistance Movements And Substantive Democracy

Does the mode of transition to democracy account for the depth of democracy in the post-transition democratic regimes? Whereas previous research has primarily focused on the effects of nonviolent resistance campaigns on improving formal dimensions of democracy, the present study examines whether or not democracies that come into existence as the result of nonviolent resistance campaigns are more successful in deepening democracy than democracies that emerge following violent conflicts or elite-led top-down liberalizations. This paper analyzes all democratic transitions that took place from 1946 to 2010, and relies on V-Dem High-Level Democracy Indices for measuring formal and substantive dimensions of democracy including (1) electoral democracy, (2) liberal democracy, (3) participatory democracy, (4) deliberative democracy, and (5) egalitarian democracy. Using difference-in-difference estimation, I find that there is a significant difference in the depth of democracy between democratic regimes following nonviolent resistance campaigns and those that are born as the result of violent revolutions and elite-led liberalizations. This effect is statistically significant for up to ten years following the democratic transition. I argue that the engagement and improvement of civil society before and during the transition to democracy is a factor that explains why NVR-induced transitions to democracy are more successful in deepening democracy