This article examines the effects of human rights and transitional justice on memories of Timor-Leste's resistance to the Indonesian occupation, which lasted from 1975 to 1999. Data comes from ethnographic fieldwork in Timor, centered around remembrance of two major acts of resistance: an armed uprising in 1983 and a peaceful demonstration in 1991. The article argues that in Timor, an "apolitical" human rights has caused a post-conflict "democratization of perpetration", in that similar culpability is assigned to all those who caused suffering in the conflict with Indonesia through physical violence, irrespective of context. Transitional justice has thus expanded the category of perpetrator in Timor, to include some who legally used armed resistance against Indonesian rule. Studies of violence have belatedly turned toward examining perpetrators of state terror; this article examines how discourses of human rights and transitional justice shape perceptions of those who resist state terror with violence.
In der Entwicklung demokratischer Staats- und Gesellschaftsstrukturen in Osteuropa kann Belarus als Sonderfall bezeichnet werden. Trotz demokratischer Anfänge hat Belarus seit 1996 eine Demontage der demokratischen Institutionen erlebt. Dieser vermeintliche Demokratisierungsprozess in Belarus bildet den Gegenstand der Untersuchung. Dabei setzt sich die Studie mit folgenden Fragen auseinander: Hat überhaupt ein Demokratisierungsprozess in Belarus stattgefunden? Inwiefern ist der angefangene Demokratisierungsprozess in Belarus gescheitert? Wie lässt sich dieses Scheitern erklären? Wie stark sind die westlichen Einflüsse auf den Demokratisierungsprozess in Belarus? Die Beantwortung berücksichtigt sowohl politische und soziale als auch juristische Aspekte des dortigen Demokratisierungsprozesses. In das Thema einführend wird zunächst die Entstehung eines demokratischen Staates und seiner Eckpfeiler Unabhängigkeit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und demokratische Verfassung beschrieben. Im Anschluss folgt die antidemokratische Entwicklung Belarus', die durch das Lukaschenka-Regime, das Referendum von 1996 sowie die Festigung des autoritären Staates forciert wird. Den Abschluss bildet das Scheitern des Demokratisierungsprozesses, wobei hier die Rolle der Zivilgesellschaft und die wenigen Ergebnisse der Demokratieförderung beleuchtet werden. (ICG2)
Disintermediation allows citizens to directly access political communication. The greater diversity of interactions between political actors results in increased flow of information. This causes decreased effectiveness for gatekeepers and agenda-setters (old media), and makes way for the creation of a deregulated, non-hierarchical, and borderless space, resulting in the empowerment of citizens and the democratization of political communication. This is a modernizing time that affects the development of political process and the role of different political actors. However, this transformation is shaped by bias and structural factors that limit its universalization and, a priori, encourage the emergence of a citizen elite that is capable of managing and benefiting from change.
The two contributions featured here appeared in the 'CODESRIA Bulletin' (No. 2, 1991). They were written as a contribution to the agenda of CODESRIA's December 1991 General Assembly, organised around the theme of 'Democratization Processes in Africa'. Although intervening events may have affected the validity of one or two minor points made, their focus on the twin objectives of individual liberties and social justice provides a valuable insight into the debate unfolding in Africa. It is a debate of universal significance: the reconciliation of political rights with social justice rights remains one of the fundamental problems confronting the socialist project. We are grateful to the CODESRIA Bulletin for permitting us to publish these abridged versions of the two papers. Readers interested in consulting the full originals, and of engaging in the debates sponsored by CODESRIA should write to them at Boite Postal 3304, Dakar, Senegal
How do attachments to political parties among the mass publics of East Asia affect the process of democratization in the region? Analyses of the East Asia Barometer surveys reveal that partisanship motivates East Asians to endorse the democratic performance of their political system and embrace democracy as the best possible system of government. These findings accord, by and large, with the socialization, cognitive dissonance, and rational choice theories of partisanship.
A key dilemma facing a military which considers democratization is whether it is confident that civilians will protect its interests. A military's confidence is a function of three factors: preference alignment with parties (trust), an expectation that allied parties will survive the transition (party institutionalization), and an expectation that allied parties can win power to protect it (party strength). When parties which the military trusts are institutionalized and strong, the military is confident that democratization will not endanger its interests. When these factors are absent, the military seeks to generate credible commitments through bounded democratization—a strategy of setting parameters on open contestation and popular sovereignty to constrain civilians. I test this argument using an original dataset on 525 regime transitions and a novel measure of bounded democratization. I find that when the institutionalization and strength of trusted parties decrease, the military proactively sets constraints on the developing political system.
A regulatory process of "democratizing the media" based on recent constitutional guarantees and a 2013 communications law is under way in Ecuador. The initiative comes from a demand for new forms of social accountability and participation in the mass media after the Latin American experience of media companies'direct engagement in coups and the destabilization of progressive governments. Media democratization is seen as necessary for the construction of democratic societies. It is distinct in Latin America from recent Northern approaches, which tend to be technocratic, suggesting democratic transformation through new online media and enhanced consumer options. Ecuador's process follows similar initiatives in Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and Uruguay but is perhaps more articulate and systematic. It is instructive in that it builds on well-established public policy themes of the containment of monopoly power, redress of civil wrongs, and the promotion of participation and diversity. While media corporations mostly seek to disqualify debate on media regulation, Ecuador's approach deserves closer examination. Ecuador está llevando a cabo un proceso de "democratización de medios" basado en las recientes garantías constitucionales y la ley de comunicaciones de 2013. La iniciativa responde a una exigencia de nuevas formas de responsabilidad social y participación en los medios de comunicación masivos a raíz de experiencias latinoamericanas en las cuales ciertas compañías de medios han intervenido para desestabilizar o generar golpes de estado contra gobiernos progresistas. La democratización de los medios se considera necesaria para la construcción de sociedades democráticas, y esta aproximación se distingue de aquellas características del hemisferio norte con sus tendencias tecnocráticas, que sugieren que la transformación democrática se ha de llevar a cabo mediante nuevos medios en línea y opciones de consumo más amplias. El proceso ecuatoriano se suma a iniciativas similares en Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina y Uruguay, pero es quizá más articulado y sistemático. Se basa en temas de política pública establecidos como la contención del poder monopólico, la rectificación de delitos civiles, y la promoción de la participación y la diversidad. Si bien las corporaciones de medios han buscado descalificar los debates en torno a la mencionada regulación, los esfuerzos ecuatorianos merecen ser examinados más de cerca.
