Search Results

This chapter uses and modifies some of the concepts developed in the transitions literature in the past in order to develop a theoretical framework that can incorporate the extensive international involvement entailed in international administration. In particular, this involves re-examining the idea of the mode of transition, which has usually been accounted for with reference to domestic variables alone, and modifying it to incorporate the role of international actors. The chapter also explores the particular mechanisms through which international forces influence domestic level politics, and highlights the positive and negative affects this form of international involvement can have. Finally, it identifies three core arenas of democratic transition and highlights the key points of interaction in each arena between domestic and international forces.

Argues that the Baltic states, mainly Estonia and Latvia, represent examples of the complicated sequence of endogenously derived transition and exogenously influenced consolidation. These democratic transitions set certain parameters for their subsequent democratic consolidation. In particular, Estonia and Latvia opted for a nationalist, ‘legal restorationist’ view of independence. This interpretation of transition represented a somewhat problematic combination of two paths towards redemocratization—‘society‐led regime termination’ and ‘internal restoration after external reconquest’. The first section of this chapter examines this apparent contradiction. The second part examines the Estonian and Latvian cases, focusing on the major international actors involved in these transitions and the mechanisms of their engagement up to early 2000. In conclusion, it is argued that international influences (mainly from the European Union) have increased as the two countries have integrated more closely with the West. Overall, this case study of Estonia and Latvia argues that the specific path a country chooses towards democratic transition is likely to create certain path‐dependent problems that it (and the rest of the democratic community) will ultimately have to face during democratic consolidation.

Describes how the Slovenian transition from communism to democratic consolidation influenced the institutional engineering in Slovenia. Since there was no real tradition of statehood or experience with state‐building in Slovenia, the establishment of a new constitutional structure after its break from Yugoslavia was immensely important both as a foundation for the new political and economic system and as the country's calling card for entry into the international community. The chapter indicates the positive and negative aspects of institutional engineering in Slovenia. Although Slovenian political elites arrived at a consensus on almost all of the pressing issues involved in democracy‐ and state‐building quickly, the result of the quick adoption of the Constitution left important issues unresolved, and ultimately hampered the legislative process. Despite the political turbulence that continues to dominate Slovene politics, democratic consolidation in Slovenia can be regarded as largely achieved.

This chapter takes a transnational approach to answering a crucial question: What role does the internet have in the democratic transitions of Muslim countries? The previous four chapters reviewed the impact of ICTs on four principal political actors: states, political parties, citizens, and journalists, exploring the causal pathways that particular countries have taken to becoming strong, resilient democracies. This chapter puts it all together using an innovative new statistical approach—fuzzy set logic—to summarize the real-world relationships between technology diffusion and democratic change. Using original data and data from established sources in original ways, it is shown that technology diffusion has had a crucial causal role in improvements in democratic institutions.

Examines the dimensions of losers’ consent in old and new democracies. We expect that losing has stronger negative effects in new democracies relative to mature democracies since losers have not yet learned to lose in countries where democratic governance is of recent vintage. The results show that, with few exceptions, political losers have lower support levels than winners across all dimensions of political support, including beliefs in core principles of democracy. Moreover, we find that the winner–loser gap is more prominent in newly democratized and democratizing states. The data also indicate that the supporters of the old communist parties exhibit significantly lower levels of support for the democratic system than voters for other parties, and in particular, if they are not in power.

Argues that although many Third World countries have experienced democratic openings, a large part of them are stuck in the initial phases of a democratic transition. International actors have contributed to this outcome in the following ways: (1) failing to appreciate the role of nationalism and political community; (2) overemphasizing economic and political liberalism; (3) supporting elite‐dominated democracies. It explores the connection between democratization and state strength, citing examples of transitions in Africa.

Spain is a good example of a formally parliamentary regime subject to presidentializing pressures. This chapter examines the foundations of this presidentialization, focusing on three broad areas: the formal constitutional framework and other institutional features stemming from the nature of the Spanish transition to democracy, the internal dynamics of Spanish political parties, and the dynamics of electoral competition. It shows that there are clear tendencies towards presidentialization in the Spanish political system, but also countervailing factors that to some extent redress the balance. There is no clear evidence of a gradual presidentialization of Spanish democracy over the post-Franco period, and the status and autonomy of Prime Ministers have fluctuated over time with no clear pattern or direction. This suggests that the key to explaining the degree of presidentialization of Spanish democracy lies in intra- and inter-party dynamics, and in the characteristics of leaders themselves. In conclusion, Spain has strongly ‘presidential’ tendencies, but its constitutional arrangements can also accommodate the reassertion of parliamentary power. In this sense, it has become quite a flexible institutional arrangement where political authority can shift in line with the unpredictable evolution of party politics.

This chapter discusses rational choice theory and the aims and purposes of this book. Rational choice theory has been applied in many subfields of political science, such as international relations and American politics. This theory assumes methodological individualism and purposeful action. The main focus of this book is the democratic transition in Korea, which this chapter treats as a succession of events.

Argues that the process of building democracy in Romania is dependent on a favourable external environment and active support from abroad. However, Romania has benefited far less from external efforts to promote democracy than most other ex‐Warsaw Pact States. The chapter points to some of the reasons of the retarded progress of democratization in Romania, such as a historical legacy of foreign occupation and sharp internal economic, cultural, and ethnic cleavages. The communist regime's determination to retain absolute control over politics and society and oppose any liberal initiatives in economics blocked off the possibility of any democratic transition. The activity of anti‐reformers described as ‘nomenklatura nationalists’ also contributed to the weakness of democratic consolidation in Romania. They demonstrated their ascendancy by blocking economic reforms between 1989 and 96, with the support of Russia, which sought to make Romania dependent on Russia's cheap energy supplies in return for political compliance. The author makes a case for a new approach to democracy building from domestic reformers and international organizations that recognizes Romania's special problems and pursues realistic targets.

This introductory chapter discusses reasons for interest in and examination of Mexican leadership over four decades, and the scholarly basis of the study, including looking at original sources, such as a data bank of 3,000 national politicians. It explains how the study is divided into three critical periods: the pre-democratic era, 1935–88; the democratic transition, 1988–2000; and the democratic era, 2000–09. It examines a number of central questions, including how the changing role of political institutions influences the characteristics and experiences of influential political leadership, the extent to which informal in contrast to formal characteristics impact on leadership composition, the degree to which non-violent alterations in a political model produces as dramatic changes as does violence, the influence of three technocratic generations, the role of women in democratic leadership, the rise and fall of local politics, and the influence of informal versus formal political characteristics.

Summarizes the arguments made in the book about the impact of election outcomes on people’s attitudes about government and reviews the evidence assembled in the empirical chapters. Specifically, it reviews the differences in attitudes between those on the winning side of an election and those on the losing end across countries and individuals as well as over time. Also highlights the critical but underexamined role of losers in democratic politics. In addition, the chapter discusses the role of political institutions in understanding political behaviour. Finally, it calls on scholars to focusing on understanding the impact of elections and election outcomes on citizens’ attitudes and behaviour.

This chapter first reviews the principal propositions regarding the relationship between individual rights and social movements, and examines the evidence in support by summarizing the results of the empirical enquiry and statistical analysis. It reviews the relationship in the separate perspectives of social movement activity and rights provision, before adopting a dual perspective which responds to the mutual influence of rights and movements. The objective is to describe the main contours of the integrated comparative argument, and so bring the research to completion. But the argument clearly has broader implications, and, in particular, may contribute to our understanding of democratic transition and consolidation in the contemporary period. Consequently, the chapter proceeds to explore this contribution by contrasting the principal research findings with the mainstream interpretations of recent democratic transitions.

Deliberation is now ubiquitous in the theory and practice of democracy – except when it comes to comparative studies of the democratization of states emerging from authoritarianism. Democratization itself can now be conceptualized in terms of the building of deliberative capacity in a political system. This capacity can be distributed in variable ways in the deliberative systems of states. Deliberative capacity proves to be an important determinant of democratic transition and consolidation, such that the concept has substantial analytical and evaluative purchase. The ambit claim is that all democratization studies need to be recalled and reframed in a deliberative light, but even if this claim is resisted by traditional democratization scholars, the deliberative aspect merits attention. Countries such as China that resist democracy conceptualized in terms of competitive elections, constitutions, and human rights recognized by the state might nonetheless prove susceptible to a deliberative path of democratization.

In South Korea and Taiwan, capital punishment has been highly open to change during the development and democratization processes, and its importance in those societies has been deeply political and symbolic. But the death penalty in these two jurisdictions can hardly be called a minor institution with “minuscule impact,” for democratic transitions in both places have pivoted on the imperative of distancing the present from a past in which capital punishment was a familiar feature of law and politics. This chapter and the next focus on two central questions. First, what explains the rapid decline of capital punishment in South Korea and Taiwan during the last decade and the purposeful pursuit of abolition in both places? And second, to what extent will South Korea and Taiwan become an Asian vanguard, leading other jurisdictions in the region on the road to life without the death penalty?

The most significant contribution women make in terms of altering career patterns among leading politicians is their significantly greater emphasis on legislative careers. A fascinating general characteristic about democratic transitions and leadership is that if change in the composition of leadership can be linked to democratic transformations, the most fundamental of those changes will occur in the legislative branch. In the longer term, if the executive branch increasingly draws on leaders with legislative experience, as is the case of President Calderón, then alterations in the composition of the legislative branch will be transferred, in part, to the executive. An increase in the number of women politicians signifies a decrease in executive experience, both on the local level as mayors, and on the state level as secretary generals and governors. Furthermore, the lack of gubernatorial experiences places future women politicians at a serious disadvantage in achieving the visibility necessary to obtain certain other higher offices, including the presidency. Finally, an increased presence of women in the last two administrations enhances the diversity of values learned in higher education since women come in greater numbers from non-traditional schools and private institutions than politicians in the past.

This chapter discusses some of the useful theoretical contributions that inform the study of civil–military relations and democratization in different political environments. The course of democratic transition and consolidation is unique to the country that is experiencing it. There are many different political, economic, and social tasks to accomplish, and how they are approached is inevitably affected by country-specific factors. As such, three things ought to be kept in mind. First, democratization in general and the democratization of civil–military relations, in particular, are always gradual processes. Second, the conception of the ideal democracy and that of the ideal civil–military relations change as societies change. Third, democracy is not some ultimate and clearly defined end result but an elusive goal that can only be approximated, constantly pondered, debated, and enhanced.

This book examines regime change during the so-called Third Wave by focusing on transitions to and from democratic rule, taking into account factors such as the nature of authoritarian and democratic institutions, regime performance, and capacities for collective action on the part of civil society. Drawing on seventy-eight discrete democratic transitions and twenty-five cases of reversion to autocracy that occurred between 1980 and 2008 as coded in two widely used datasets, the book considers how structural factors affect transitions to and reversions from democracy. It shows that democratization driven by mass mobilization appears to hinge on political factors: how exclusionary or co-optive authoritarian regimes are and the extent to which publics are capable of mobilizing grievances into the political arena. This introduction defines core terms and justifies the book's focus on the Third Wave. It also previews the book's empirical findings and concludes with a note on the research method used.