Democracy as a Westminster Heritage

Conventional wisdom from colonial history research has it that the states which the British left behind them were better equipped for democratic government than the states that had belonged to other colonial powers. Investigating the democracy fortunes of all fifty-four territories that were freed following World War II from British control, and applying Freedom House ratings to determine democracy status, this study examines the belief that democratic government has become a characteristic feature of former British possessions. Findings are that the former colonies may be ordered roughly into three groups. Whereas seventeen countries since 1972 have always, or almost always, been classified as democracies, a larger portion, consisting of twenty-three countries, has always, or almost always, been ranked as non-democracies. The remaining fourteen countries represent an in-between category. On the whole, therefore, the idea that democracy is a central part of the Westminster heritage overall cannot be supported. Explanations for the division of the former colonies into three groups have been researched in different directions, and the efforts substantiate earlier observations in the literature on the relevance to democratization of factors that relate to state size, modernization, and geography. Concerning the impact of the length of colonial rule, the findings confirm an earlier suggestion by Samuel Huntington that colonies which had a long British presence have been particularly well equipped to develop into stable democracies. Adapted from the source document.