Between Democratic Transformation, Democratic Transition, and the Question of the Syrian Reality

Introduction:

The distinction between the concepts of “Democratic Transformation” and “Democratic Transition” constitutes a central issue in the field of contemporary political and philosophical studies, particularly in analyzing the paths of political change in Arab societies.

With the increasing complexity of the transformations following the Arab Spring, there has emerged a need for precise analytical tools to explain the nature and limits of democratic transformations. This analysis holds both methodological and practical importance, as it touches upon the core of how we conceive political time, the roles of social actors, and the criteria for evaluating emerging democratic systems.

The main issue revolves around the question: Is there a fundamental difference between “Democratic Transformation” and “Democratic Transition,” or are they simply interchangeable terms?

The two concepts are often conflated in academic literature, where:

• Transition is viewed as a critical institutional phase focused on restructuring the system of governance.
• Transformation is seen as a comprehensive societal process that reshapes cultural and economic structures.

This confusion raises important questions about whether a successful political transition can occur without a deep societal transformation to support it.

This paper assumes that democratic transition represents a foundational, decisive moment centered on restructuring political and constitutional institutions, while democratic transformation is a long-term, cumulative process that includes redefining the social contract and the cultural values underpinning democracy. This distinction is based on three dimensions:

1. Temporal Dimension: Transition is a limited phase (such as drafting a constitution), while transformation is a long historical trajectory (like entrenching pluralistic values).
2. Key Actors: Transition is led by political elites, whereas transformation requires the engagement of civil society.
3. Evaluation Criteria: Transition is measured by institutions (such as holding elections), while transformation is measured by behaviors (such as respecting minority rights).

The study draws on leading theoretical contributions in democratic analysis, with a focus on Arab contexts. The paper will explore this issue through:

• Analyzing the conceptual framework of both terms.
• Comparing practical models from Arab experiences.
• Evaluating the implications of this distinction for the future of democracy in the region.

Theoretical Framework: The Conceptual and Theoretical Distinction Between Democratic Transformation and Democratic Transition

First: Key Definitions

Democratic Transition is defined as the critical phase that follows the collapse of an authoritarian regime, focusing on the reconstruction of core political institutions within a limited time frame.

According to Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter, this phase is characterized by:

• Its institutional nature, such as drafting constitutions, establishing party pluralism, and holding foundational elections.
• Elite-driven negotiations, involving compromises between reformists from the old regime and opposition forces—or in the Syrian context, among various de facto powers after liberation.
• Criteria of success, including the adoption of a new constitution, the formation of an elected government, and the state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force.

Democratic Transformation, on the other hand, refers to a long-term historical process that involves restructuring the political, economic, social, and cultural foundations of society. As Robert Dahl (1998) argues, its core features include:

• Inclusiveness, through reforms in education, empowerment of civil society, and redistribution of wealth.
• Gradual accumulation, with the entrenchment of values like tolerance and participation across generations.
• Behavioral criteria, where the measure of progress lies in the deep-rootedness of democratic practices (such as respect for pluralism), rather than merely in institutional formalities.

In integrating both concepts, Azmi Bishara posits that transition represents the “foundational moment,” whereas transformation is the “long-term path toward legitimization.”

Second: Framing Theories

Among the key theories framing the distinction between democratic transition and transformation are:

1. Modernization Theory

This theory, as formulated by Samuel Huntington (1991), is based on the premise that democracy is an inevitable outcome of socio-economic development. Its key conditions for transformation include:

• Industrialization and urbanization, leading to the emergence of a middle class that demands rights.
• Rising education levels, which enhance democratic culture.

However, this theory has faced criticism for:

• Overlooking political will and agency.
• Failing to explain exceptions, such as India’s democracy despite being a predominantly agrarian society.

2. Democratic Transition Theory (Transitology)

This theory focuses on the strategic interactions between elites during the collapse of authoritarian regimes. According to the classification by O’Donnell and Schmitter, transition paths typically follow one of the following routes:

• Top-down reform (e.g., Francoist Spain).
• Bottom-up revolution (e.g., Latin America).
• Negotiated settlement (e.g., South Africa).

Criticisms of this theory include:

• Reducing democracy to electoral procedures, as noted by Azmi Bishara.
• Neglecting external factors, such as international pressures and interventions.

3. Integrative Theories

These seek to combine structural (modernization) and agency-based (transition) factors. One example is the model proposed by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, which links institutional stability to the construction of a civic culture through:

• Rule of law.
• A vibrant civil society.
• A fair market economy.

Similarly, the United Nations’ approach advocates for a dual track of:

• Institutional reform (such as the separation of powers).
• Societal transformation (such as fostering popular participation).

Comparison Between the Concepts of Democratic Transformation and Democratic Transition

There are five key distinctions between democratic transformation and democratic transition, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Fundamental Difference in Timeframe and Nature

• Democratic Transition is a short-term, critical phase that immediately follows the fall of an authoritarian regime. It focuses on restructuring political institutions through drafting new constitutions and conducting pluralistic elections. This phase typically lasts 2 to 5 years and is characterized by elite-driven negotiations.
• Example: Tunisia after 2011—within three years, a democratic constitution was adopted, and a parliament was elected.
• Democratic Transformation, by contrast, is a long-term historical process that can span decades. It involves comprehensive reforms in political, economic, and cultural structures, and depends on the gradual shift in societal values.
• Example: Indonesia, where the process from the fall of Suharto in 1998 to the consolidation of democratic mechanisms took around 20 years.

2. Mechanisms and Drivers of Change

• Democratic Transition is often sparked by sudden, radical events like revolutions (Tunisia, 2011) or military interventions (Egypt, 2011). It depends on political and military elite consensus to rebuild state institutions, often through formal agreements like:
• National Conferences (Benin, 1990)
• Reconciliation Agreements (South Africa, 1994)
• Democratic Transformation proceeds through gradual reforms, either:
• Top-down, like monarch-led reforms in Morocco
• Bottom-up, like civil society pressure in Ghana
• It includes legislative changes (e.g., freedom of expression laws) and educational programs to foster tolerance and democratic norms.

3. Scope of Change and Success Indicators

• Democratic Transition focuses on formal political institutions, including:
• Separation of powers
• Free elections
• Multiparty systems
• Its success is measured by procedural indicators, such as:
• Enacting a new constitution
• Electing a representative government
• Example: Tunisia’s 2014 elections are considered a successful transitional milestone.
• Democratic Transformation extends to non-political realms, such as:
• Reforming education to promote citizenship
• Empowering women (e.g., 30% parliamentary quota in Indonesia)
• Fighting structural corruption
• It is measured by behavioral indicators, including:
• Acceptance of religious pluralism
• Decline in political violence
• Rising citizen trust in the state

4. Risks of Backsliding and Sustainability

• Democratic Transition is vulnerable to rapid collapse if political consensus falters.
• Example: Egypt in 2013—elite fragmentation led to a military coup.
• There’s also the risk of “hybrid regimes”, which combine democratic façades with authoritarian practices (e.g., Russia after 1993).
• Democratic Transformation risks stagnation or counter-revolution if reforms are too slow.
• Example: Algeria’s partial reforms failed to prevent the 2019 uprising.
• Ensuring sustainability requires long-term institutional and social safeguards, such as:
• Judicial independence (e.g., South Africa after 1994)

5. The Necessity of Integration Between the Two Concepts

• Transition provides the institutional framework, but transformation ensures democratic durability.
• Example: In Ghana, the 1992 elections marked a successful transition. However, long-term stability came from transformation efforts like:
• Dismantling ethnic loyalties
• Promoting program-based political parties
• In contrast, Libya’s post-Gaddafi collapse illustrates that transition alone—without social transformation—cannot sustain democracy.
• Tribal structures and a culture of violence remained unaddressed.

As Azmi Bishara notes:

“Transition without transformation produces a fragile democracy.”

Temporary consensus is insufficient without redefining the social contract.

Conclusion

If transition is a surgical moment that reshapes the structure of power, then transformation is a long-term healing process that mends the wounds of society. Both are essential, but it is the deep societal transformation that ultimately determines whether democracy can take root and endure.

Factors Influencing Democratic Transformation and Democratic Transition

The factors influencing either democratic transformation or transition can perhaps be grouped into two paths: internal factors and external factors.

First: Internal Factors

These can be summarized by considering structural dynamics and political will:

• Role of Political Elites, between consensus and fragmentation:
• In the transition phase, elites are the central actors, according to the perspective of O’Donnell and Schmitter, where the “consensus between reformists and the opposition” determines the fate of the transitional period.
• Example: In Tunisia 2011, the “National Dialogue Quartet” (unions and parties) succeeded in preventing collapse through a historic compromise, while elite fragmentation in Egypt led to the 2013 reversal.
• In transformation, the role goes beyond political elites to societal elites (intellectuals, media figures) who reshape public discourse, as in Gramsci’s model of “cultural hegemony.”
• Example: In Morocco, King Mohammed VI’s reforms contributed to gradually promoting a discourse of moderation by dismantling fundamentalist narratives.
• Institutions, manifesting as the difference between formal framework and functional essence:
• In transition, constitutional institutions (like the constitutional court) serve as safeguards against backsliding, but remain fragile without social legitimacy.
• Note: 60% of emerging democracies suffer from “pseudo-democracy,” where institutions become tools for entrenching power, as in Russia.
• In transformation, it requires informal institutions like civil society, which reproduce values of trust. This is supported by Putnam in his analysis of “social capital” in Italy.
• Example: In Poland, the “Solidarity” union contributed to dismantling authoritarian structures over decades.
• Political Culture, which is the infrastructure of democracy:
• Transformation is linked to changing the collective mindset. Almond and Verba argue that “civic culture” (participation, tolerance) is a condition for democratic sustainability.
• Example: In India, democracy endured despite challenges due to the acceptance of religious pluralism as a deeply rooted value.
• As for transition, it may occur in societies that lack a democratic culture, exposing them to relapse.
• Huntington states: “Democracies without a democratic culture are temporary democracies.”

Second: External Factors

Here, interventions and the global context stand out through:

• International Powers, in terms of the relationship between external support and social engineering:
• Positive support may enhance transition through diplomatic pressure (e.g., EU sanctions on Myanmar) or technical support (e.g., UN assistance in drafting constitutions, as in Tunisia).
• Negative intervention, however, may result in an “imported democracy” lacking local roots.
• Example: In Iraq 2003, the occupation dismantled the state without building a legitimate alternative.
• Globalization, through virtual space and the influence of models that accelerate transformation by transferring democratic models:
• Example: The success of Spain’s transition influenced Latin America.
• Virtual protest spaces emerged (e.g., Facebook’s role in the Arab Spring).
• However, globalization also poses the threat of “cultural colonialism” that marginalizes local specificities, as warned by Edgar Morin.
• Economic Dependency and Constraints of Financial Institutions, such as the IMF’s conditions, which may trigger political reforms (good governance requirements), but obstruct true transformation through:
• Dismantling the welfare state (e.g., austerity programs in Egypt, 2016)
• Deepening class inequalities, weakening social cohesion

The dialectical interaction between internal and external factors may produce contradictory models, such as:

• Example:
• Ukraine: A case of dual dependency, where the conflict between Russia and the West turned into a tool for fragmenting national sovereignty
• South Africa: A case of resilient sovereignty, where international support was turned into a platform for strengthening a local project

Conclusion

It appears that external factors may shape the context, but the core of both processes (transition and transformation) remains dependent on internal will.

“Democracy is not made in Washington or Brussels—it is made on the ground, where the people shape their own destiny.”

In summary, lasting democracy is the result of internal conviction, culture, and institutional depth—external support can assist, but cannot replace genuine local ownership.

Case Studies:

For an applied study, we take one example of transformation and one of transition: democratic transformation in Spain and democratic transition in Tunisia.

As for Spain, the model of democratic transformation was gradual. The death of Franco (1975) marked a pivotal moment, but the Spanish transformation went beyond a mere “transition” to a comprehensive restructuring process that spanned two decades.

First came elite-level compromises, where King Juan Carlos led a gradual reform process by appointing Adolfo Suárez (1976), who launched a national dialogue with the opposition, avoiding a break with the institutions of the previous regime.

Second was a sequence of legal reforms, beginning with the “Political Reform Law” (1976), approved by public referendum, followed by the 1978 Constitution which enshrined the rule of law, and culminating in Spain’s accession to the European Economic Community (1986) to consolidate institutional guarantees.

The process faced a failed coup attempt (1981) led by pro-Franco officers, but the resolve of the king and political class prevented collapse.

Key success factors of this gradual transformation include:

• The decisive role of political culture, and the emergence of a middle class demanding reform after industrialization and urbanization, along with the entrenchment of values like tolerance through education and civil society.
• The integration of institutions and values—the Spanish model did not merely change the constitution, but also reformed the economy (market liberalization) and judiciary (judicial independence).
• Time as a critical factor, as democratic consolidation took 20 years (1975–1996), with peaceful transfers of power from the Right to the Socialists (1982), and then to the Popular Party (1996).

The Spanish transformation offers a clear lesson:

“Democracy was not an event but a long journey, in which formal institutions were turned into societal values.”

As for Tunisia, it represented a model of rapid democratic transition—yet one marked by setbacks. It began with a revolutionary moment (2011), but failed to evolve into a cumulative process. The rapid institutional achievements included the overthrow of Ben Ali in 28 days, the drafting of the 2014 Constitution enshrining freedoms and women’s rights, and the holding of three parliamentary and presidential elections (2014, 2019, 2022) under the supervision of an independent authority, ensuring peaceful power transfer.

However, the structural failures were economic:

Unemployment rose to 18%, and debt to 100% of GDP, due to austerity policies and the absence of a developmental vision. There was also severe political polarization, as the national dialogue turned into an Islamist-secular conflict—especially after Ennahda took control of parliament (2019).

Setback and counter-revolutionary factors included:

• Populism as a disintegrative force, where President Kais Saied exploited the absence of social justice and the rhetoric of the “corrupt elite” to suspend parliament (2021), cancel the constitution, and inaugurate a “Third Republic” with absolute presidential powers.
• Lack of societal transformation: despite democratic institutions, political culture remained rooted in familial and regional loyalties—especially in the marginalized interior where the revolution had begun.

One could say that transition without transformation results in fragile democracy; Tunisia drafted an exemplary constitution but neglected building the Tunisian citizen—leading to the current impasse.

Key lessons for Syria from the two cases are:

• Spain demonstrates that democratic transformation requires a “historical sequence,” starting with institutional reforms (like the 1976 law), then integrating the economy into the Western system (European market), and finally changing collective mindsets across generations.
• Tunisia reveals the dangers of reducing democracy to elections, where elites failed to understand that freedom doesn’t feed people—democracy requires social justice as a material foundation.

Thus, the Spanish and Tunisian models represent two opposing historical trajectories:

• Spain succeeded because it turned “transition” into transformation by merging political reform with economic and cultural restructuring.
• Tunisia regressed because it turned “revolutionary transition” into elite conflict, ignoring the original demands of the revolution: “Jobs, Freedom, National Dignity.”

As Azmi Bishara reminds us:

“Transition is a phase, but transformation is a historical process that dissolves the sediment of authoritarianism in society—not just in the constitution.”

Case Studies:

To illustrate the concepts of democratic transformation and transition, we examine two examples: Spain’s democratic transformation and Tunisia’s democratic transition.

Spain: Democratic Transformation

Spain’s democratic transformation was gradual. The death of Franco in 1975 marked a pivotal moment. However, Spain’s transformation went beyond mere “transition” to a comprehensive restructuring process that spanned two decades. Initially, elite settlements took place, with King Juan Carlos leading a gradual reform process by appointing Adolfo Suárez in 1976, who initiated a national dialogue with the opposition, avoiding a break with the institutions of the previous regime.

Secondly, a sequential legal reform began with the “Political Reform Act” (1976), approved by popular referendum, followed by the 1978 Constitution that enshrined the rule of law, and concluded with Spain’s accession to the European market in 1986 to solidify institutional guarantees.

The process faced a failed coup attempt in 1981 led by pro-Franco officers. However, the resilience of the king and the political class prevented its collapse.

Key factors contributing to the success of this gradual transformation include:

• The decisive role of political culture, the emergence of a middle class demanding reform after urbanization and industrialization, and the rooting of values of tolerance through education and civil society.
• The integration of institutions and values, as the Spanish model did not only change the constitution but also included economic reforms (market liberalization) and judicial reforms (court independence).
• Time as a decisive factor, as consolidating democracy took 20 years (1975–1996), during which power peacefully shifted from the right to the socialists in 1982, and then to the People’s Party in 1996.

Spain’s transformation teaches us a clear lesson: “Democracy was not an event but a long journey, turning formal institutions into societal values.”

Tunisia: Democratic Transition

Tunisia’s model represents rapid democratic transition and its setbacks. It began with a decisive revolutionary moment in 2011 but did not evolve into a cumulative process. Rapid institutional achievements were evident with the ousting of Ben Ali within 28 days, the drafting of the 2014 Constitution that enshrined freedoms and women’s rights, and the conduct of three legislative and presidential elections (2014, 2019, 2022) under the supervision of an independent body, ensuring peaceful power transfer.

Structural failures were evident in the economy, where unemployment rose to 18%, and public debt reached 100% of GDP due to austerity policies and lack of developmental vision. Additionally, political division turned the national dialogue into an Islamist-secular conflict, especially after the Ennahda Movement took control of parliament in 2019.

Factors leading to setbacks and counter-revolution included:

• Populism as a disintegrating factor, with Kais Saied exploiting the absence of social justice and the “corrupt elite” narrative to suspend parliament in 2021 and abolish the constitution, inaugurating the “Third Republic” with absolute presidential powers.
• The absence of societal transformation, as despite democratic institutions, political culture remained based on familial and regional loyalties, especially in marginalized interior regions where the revolution began.

It can be said that transition without transformation leads to fragile democracy. Tunisia built an advanced constitution but neglected building the Tunisian citizen, leading to its current state.

Lessons for Syria from the Two Models

From the previous examples, Spain demonstrates that democratic transformation requires a “historical sequence” starting with institutional reform like the 1976 Law, integrating the economy into the Western system (European market), and finally changing the collective mentality over generations. Tunisia reveals the dangers of reducing democracy to elections, as elites failed to realize that freedom doesn’t provide bread; democracy needs social justice as a material foundation.

The Spanish and Tunisian models represent opposing historical sequences. Spain succeeded because it transformed “transition” into “transformation” by integrating political reform with economic and cultural change.

Tunisia faltered because it turned “revolutionary transition” into “elite conflict” that overlooked the core demands: “Employment, Freedom, National Dignity.”

Azmi Bishara reminds us that “transition is a phase, while transformation is a historical process that dissolves the residues of despotism in society, not just in the constitution.”

Political Office

Jumaa Muhammad Laheeb

Research and Studies Department

Research

Syrian Future Movement

References:

1. Bishara, Azmi. (2020). Democratic Transition and Its Issues, Center for Arab Unity Studies.
2. O’Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. (1986). Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Anderson, L. (2011). “Demystifying the Arab Spring.” Foreign Affairs.
4. Al-Shabi, Ali. Challenges of the Tunisian Economy in the Context of the Transitional Phase (2011-2017), Al Jazeera Center.
5. Barakat, Halim. (2000). Contemporary Arab Society, Center for Arab Unity Studies.
6. Spain’s Transition to Democracy. Wikipedia.
7. Al-Hanashi, Abdel Latif. (2019). Tunisia from the Lost Revolution to the Difficult Democratic Transition.
8. Al-Jabri, Star. (2019). The Experience of Democratic Transformation in Spain, Hammurabi Journal of Studies.
9. ASJP, The Role of External Actors in the Democratic Transformation Pathways in the Maghreb Countries, https://asjp.cerist.dz
10. Al-Mufti, Muhammad. (2020). Globalization and Democratic Transformation in the Arab World. Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi Journal, Issue 502.
11. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, External Factor and Democratic Transition in Arab Countries. https://www.dohainstitute.org
12. Abdel Hamid Ali, Nadia. (2020). Democratic Transformation in Indonesia: From Authoritarianism to Emerging Democracy, retrieved from https://arabprf.com/?p=3066
13. Al Jazeera Center for Studies. (2018). Democratic Transformation Pathways in Africa: Successes and Failures, retrieved from http://studies.aljazeera.net/ar/reports/2018/03/180329102036214.html
14. Annan, Kofi. (2005). “Speech at the Democracy Forum.” United Nations.
15. Al-Quraity, Saeed. (2018). “Democratic Transformation in the Arab World: Issues and Prospects,” Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi, (478), pp. 34-51.