80
Marcus gustafsson
theories in order to apply them comparatively.
Country-specific differences have a definite impact – the Mexican drug
trade being a clear example. Yet by employing a general framework of
analysis, comparison is possible and contributes not only to the understanding of the instant cases, but also to the understanding of the field of
democratic consolidation as a whole.
Causes of Democratic Consolidation
Most of the post-war writings on democratic consolidation take a structural, deterministic approach to the growth of democracy, emphasising
intricately linked socio-economic causes. Lerner established in The
Passing of Traditional Society a strong correlation between urbanisation and literacy (1958: 54-68), and argued that these factors, together
with increased communication, lead to political development (Ibid: 5254, 398-412). Pye also emphasised communication as a driver of political development (1966: 153-171). Lipset argued in his seminal essay
in 1959 that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that
it will sustain democracy” (1959: 75), from which the Modernization
School emerged, linking democracy and economic development. In another influential study, Almond and Verba examined the role of political
values in achieving democratic consolidation, and also showed strong
linkages to levels of education (1963: 87). The thesis of such “civic
cultural” values has been supported recently most notably by Inglehart,
terming them “self-expression values” (Welzel et al 2003: 342).
These structural, deterministic causes, which include levels of education, communication, economic development and political culture, affect a country’s population as a whole. They will be included under the
notion of public commitment, representing a ‘bottom-up’ approach to
democratic consolidation.
However, these theories have been criticised for lacking elements o f