Suchergebnisse

This survey of the literature on conditions for democratic consolidation suggests the necessity of going beyond procedural definitions of democracy (based on fair, honest and periodic elections) to more normative ideas about decision‐making being controlled by all members of the group as equals. In this view, democracy is a matter of the degreeto which basic principles are realised and democratisation is always and everywhere an unfinished process. Four factors which facilitate democratic consolidation — the experience of transition itself, a country's economic system, its political culture and its constitutional arrangements — are analysed through an assessment of ten key hypotheses implicit in the literature.

Abstract. Schumpeter's account of the relationship between capitalism, socialism and democracy is reviewed by means of a critical analysis of four contemporary neo‐liberal theorems about the market and democracy. It is argued that they each embody partial truths that can only be accepted with considerable qualifications, which the paper seeks to provide. The connection of the four theorems with Schumpeter's work is then traced through the continuities of the liberal political tradition.

Liberalism has provided both a necessary basis for modern democracy and also a constraint upon it. This duality makes a democratic critique of liberalism both imperative and also problematical, in so far as it threatens the conditions of liberal democracy itself. Two of these conditions are examined – the institution of representation and the principle of the limited state – to discover what limits they might impose on the justifiable ambitions of democratizers, to extend political participation on the one hand, and the social agenda for democratization on the other.

LIBERALISM HAS PROVIDED BOTH A NECESSARY BASIS FOR MODERN DEMOCRACY AND ALSO A CONSTRAINT UPON IT. THIS DUALITY MAKES A DEMOCRATIC CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM BOTH IMPERATIVE AND PROBLEMATICAL, IN SO FAR AS IT THREATENS THE CONDITIONS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY ITSELF. TWO OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE EXAMINED--THE INSTITUTION OF REPRESENTATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE LIMITED STATE--TO DISCOVER WHAT LIMITS THEY MIGHT IMPOSE ON THE JUSTIFIABLE AMBITIONS OF DEMOCRATIZERS, TO EXTEND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE SOCIAL AGENDA FOR DEMOCRATIZATION ON THE OTHER.

Abstract
Max Weber's typology of legitimate 'Herrschaft' has provided the basis for the treatment of legitimacy in twentieth century sociology and political science. The thesis of the article is that this typology is a misleading tool for the analysis of the modern state, and especially for the comparative analysis of political systems. This is because of basic flaws in Weber's conceptualisation of legitimacy itself, and in his account of the normative basis of authority. The article offers an alternative, multi-dimensional, account of political legitimacy, and suggests how it might be used to develop a typology of forms of 'Herrschaft' more appropriate to the analysis of the modern state.