Search results

A comment on Will Kymlicka's "Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe" (2001) argues that principles of liberal democracy & democratic pluralism work only if they match extant political, sociological, & cultural realities. Problems with Anglo-Saxon analyses of postcommunism are delineated, noting that the central tension in the context of liberal pluralism is the relationship between individual & collective identities. Collective identities may delimit individual choice & be coercive in terms of cognitions, but they are structurally universal despite vast content variations. Regarding the acceptance of collective identities, ie, ethnic groups, as legitimate, the character of ethnicity is explored, along with the persistence of ethnic identities. Attention turns to the role of political institutions & cultural reproduction, highlighting issues related to the state & contending that in Central & Southeastern Europe there has been little purchase for liberal pluralism during & after communism. In addition, why postcommunist civil society has been unable to meet its democratizing responsibility is considered, asserting that differences between established democracies & postcommunist states make direct comparisons useless. The relevance of native rule & the placement of political elites in the grounding of first- & second-order rules governing the exercise of power are seen as reasons behind liberal democracy's development in Western Europe. The dysfunction of second-order rules in postcommunist states is then addressed. In closing, the idea of a double standard vis-a-vis Western views of democracy & human rights enforcement in postcommunist states is briefly touched on. J. Zendejas

A comment on Will Kymlicka's "Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe" (2001) argues that principles of liberal democracy & democratic pluralism work only if they match extant political, sociological, & cultural realities. Problems with Anglo-Saxon analyses of postcommunism are delineated, noting that the central tension in the context of liberal pluralism is the relationship between individual & collective identities. Collective identities may delimit individual choice & be coercive in terms of cognitions, but they are structurally universal despite vast content variations. Regarding the acceptance of collective identities, ie, ethnic groups, as legitimate, the character of ethnicity is explored, along with the persistence of ethnic identities. Attention turns to the role of political institutions & cultural reproduction, highlighting issues related to the state & contending that in Central & Southeastern Europe there has been little purchase for liberal pluralism during & after communism. In addition, why postcommunist civil society has been unable to meet its democratizing responsibility is considered, asserting that differences between established democracies & postcommunist states make direct comparisons useless. The relevance of native rule & the placement of political elites in the grounding of first- & second-order rules governing the exercise of power are seen as reasons behind liberal democracy's development in Western Europe. The dysfunction of second-order rules in postcommunist states is then addressed. In closing, the idea of a double standard vis-a-vis Western views of democracy & human rights enforcement in postcommunist states is briefly touched on. J. Zendejas

"Two major points can be raised regarding which I consider it to be necessary to reconsider Hollifield's thesis concerning the dilemma of liberal democracies in Controlling immigration. Both are based on the thesis that there is less continuity with respect to how the issue of immigration is politically dealt with and institutionalized in policy initiatives. Regarding the developments in Germany of the 1990th it is questionable to still speak about a dominant liberal consensus with a distinct commitment to human and civil rights in the field of immigration policy. The first argument is that processes of social exclusion have notably changed the legal rights for immigrants regarding both the formal requirements for immigration and the social and political rights that are granted to them once they have set foot into Germany. In particular, the dramatic drop in the figures of asylum seekers and immigrants of German origin over the last two years clearly shows that the nation-state still disposes of effective means to restrict immigration. These figures make manifest that at least to a considerable degree liberal states are able to regulate and control immigration. The basic mechanism by which the extremely rigid approach to immigration and political asylum is legitimized is the re-definition of the boundaries between members and non-members of the community. Today we are witnessing a new attempt to define the boundaries between the We and the Other both at the national and at the European level. The configuration of immigration politics and policy will not remain untouched by this development. In the 1990th this has created a consequential process of social exclusion of ethnically defined groups from equal access to societal resources and life chances. This aspect often escapes a perspective which primarily focuses on the policy debate and the resulting legal decisions. At least regarding a certain fraction of immigrants and asylum seekers this logic of exclusion has also become dominant in different policy areas and increasingly shapes the legal conditions and administrative restrictions under which these groups live in German society. This brings me to my second point regarding to which I think Hollifield's thesis of the stability of the liberal consensus needs to be revisited. There is a growing fraction of immigrants and asylum seekers that are systematically excluded from the liberal realm of humanitarian and civic rights. Manifestly, the liberal consensus does not refer to all immigrant groups and asylum seekers equally. Defining them by the status of being illegal this group is radically exempted from this consensus. In spite of the humanitarian rhetoric, the daily practice of dealing with immigrants shows that a right-based politics presupposes the decision of who is considered to be entitled to claim even the most fundamental rights." (extract)

In an attempt to build bridges between evolutionary international relations theory & alternative theoretical perspectives, it is proposed that international relations (IR) theory has already laid the necessary groundwork to link traditional IR thinking with evolutionary theorizing. This idea is supported by the argument that rational choice does not dictate theoretical IR hypotheses. Rather, the idea of evolutionary adaptation is a central principle, though liberal & realist viewpoints differ on how adaptation actually occurs. Liberals emphasize structural discontinuity & adaptations that result from technological change while realists focus on structural continuity & the influences of competitive survival. It is proposed that these divergent viewpoints might be reconciled if the evolutionary component were granted a central position in the argument. Because the most appropriate viewpoint is located between the liberal & realist perspectives, an evolutionary assessment must be considered. 90 References. K. Larsen

The status of liberal democracy in post-Soviet Azerbaijan is studied. It is contended that the process of nation building in transitional Azerbaijan is a particularly formidable task since the nation has never experienced democratization. The role of political elites in developing democracies is examined to better understand the conflict between old party elites & new political elites in present-day Azerbaijan. It is subsequently claimed that several additional difficulties have problematized the realization of liberal democracy in Azerbaijan, eg, the strong presence of traditional Muslim values & the absence of certain civil & political rights. It is concluded that contemporary Azerbaijani society is not prepared to accept Western-oriented democratic reforms; moreover, it is suggested that future political efforts focus on nation-building processes & democratization. 26 References. J. W. Parker

The status of liberal democracy in post-Soviet Azerbaijan is studied. It is contended that the process of nation building in transitional Azerbaijan is a particularly formidable task since the nation has never experienced democratization. The role of political elites in developing democracies is examined to better understand the conflict between old party elites & new political elites in present-day Azerbaijan. It is subsequently claimed that several additional difficulties have problematized the realization of liberal democracy in Azerbaijan, eg, the strong presence of traditional Muslim values & the absence of certain civil & political rights. It is concluded that contemporary Azerbaijani society is not prepared to accept Western-oriented democratic reforms; moreover, it is suggested that future political efforts focus on nation-building processes & democratization. 26 References. J. W. Parker

Introduces this collection of articles that reflect the growing turn away from multicultural & postnational perspectives in immigration research toward a renewed emphasis on citizenship & assimilation. Focus is on (1) immigration policies in liberal nation-states, & (2) immigrant practices & adjustments to such policies. In the policy arena, multiculturalism appears on the decline & citizenship is being reevaluated. On the part of immigrants, adaptation to the host society, maintenance of linkages with the home society, & the creation of new transnational identities are all evident. The situation in the US & various European countries is compared. 116 References. K Hyatt Stewart