Myths of Moderation: Confrontation and Conflict during Democratic Transitions

In a 1970 essay that marked the beginning of a new wave of writing on democratization, Dankwart A. Rustow argued persuasively that democracy is the fruit of "choice" and "conscious decision" on the part of political elites.' This perception seems widely shared, for our current literature is full of tactical insights on how elites might be induced to choose democracy over alternative political systems. This essay focuses on the tactics of the transition period, defined as the time between the breakdown of the dictatorship and the conclusion of the first democratic national elections. It examines what I call the "moderation argument": that radical popular organizations threaten democratic transitions if they fail to moderate their demands and behavior as the moment of elite choice approaches. Implicit and explicit variations of the moderation argument are widely purveyed, and this essay assesses their merits in light evidence from Iberia, Latin America, and Asia. It concludes by explaining when the moderation argument does and does not hold.