Suchergebnisse

Democracy in Iran examines democratization movements and processes in Iran over the last few decades, explains the causes of their failure, and suggests possible route to successful democratization. The book proposes a new framework for analyzing routes for democratization in the context of extremely authoritarian regimes in developing countries, specifically, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The new framework specifies the relevant variables in the economic, political, ideological, and social conditions of developing countries that determine alternative paths to democratization.--

This book examines the democratization process in Africa with a focus on issues of economic, social, and institutional development. Contributors analyze the impact of democratization on governance and institutional development, foreign aid and foreign direct investment, terrorism in Africa, identity politics, and the politics of oil extraction.

The Failure of Democracy in Iraq studies democratization in post-2003 Iraq that has so far failed due mainly to cultural and religious reasons. There are other factors, such as legacy of the dictatorial regime, exclusionary policies, stateness problem, interference by regional powers, rentier economy and sectarianism, that have impeded democracy and contributed to its failure, but the employment of religion in politics was the most to blame. The establishment of stable democratic institutions continues to elude Iraq, 15 years after toppling the dictatorship. The post-2003 Iraq could not completely eradicate the long historical tradition of despotic governance due to deep-seated religious beliefs and tribal values, along with widening societal ethno-sectarian rifts which precluded the negotiation of firm and stable elite settlements and pacts across communal lines. The book examines how the fear by neighbouring countries of a region-wide domino effect of the Iraq democratization process caused them to adopt interventionist policies towards Iraq that helped to stunt the development of democracy. The lack of commitment by the initiator of democratic process, the United States, undermined the prospects of democratic consolidation. This is compounded by serious mistakes such as the Deba'athification and disbanding the Iraqi army and security apparatuses which caused a security vacuum the US forces were not able to fill. The Failure of Democracy in Iraq is a key resource for all students and academics interested in Democracy, Islam and Middle East Studies

The post-Taliban democratic reforms in Afghanistan were in part a recreation of the past. Afghanistan has had six constitutions between 1923 and 1990, and most have provided for national assemblies and elections in one form or other. Yet the degree of foreign involvement in the most recent reform process was unprecedented. The heavy foreign hand contradicted the promise of national autonomy, representation, and fair process held out by the democratization agenda. By implicitly devaluing the institutions it sought to promote, the democratization process has also had potentially counterproductive effects. Moreover, while promoting democratization, Western governments simultaneously created a state so dependent on external support that it deprived the critical institution of liberal democracy - the legislature - of its meaning. The logical response of the national assembly has been to engage mostly in politics with symbolic or nuisance value. This study focuses on three areas of political reform: the structuring of the interim administration, the promulgation of a new constitution, and the establishment of the legislature.

The post-Taliban democratic reforms in Afghanistan were in part a recreation of the past. Afghanistan has had six constitutions between 1923 and 1990, and most have provided for national assemblies and elections in one form or other. Yet the degree of foreign involvement in the most recent reform process was unprecedented. The heavy foreign hand contradicted the promise of national autonomy, representation, and fair process held out by the democratization agenda. By implicitly devaluing the institutions it sought to promote, the democratization process has also had potentially counterproductive effects. Moreover, while promoting democratization, Western governments simultaneously created a state so dependent on external support that it deprived the critical institution of liberal democracy - the legislature - of its meaning. The logical response of the national assembly has been to engage mostly in politics with symbolic or nuisance value. This study focuses on three areas of political reform: the structuring of the interim administration, the promulgation of a new constitution, and the establishment of the legislature.

AbstractTo what extent and under what conditions do democratic institutions reduce socioeconomic ethnic inequality? I argue that democratization reduces ethnic inequality by introducing electoral accountability, which facilitates a series of egalitarian policies. However, the effect of democratization is conditional on the distribution of resources under the previous, nondemocratic regime. Countries that were more ethnically unequal prior to democratization experience greater egalitarian effects following democratization. To examine the argument, I leverage multiple country‐ and group‐level measures of ethnic inequality. Using fixed effects regressions, instrumental variable analyses, and event studies, I demonstrate that democratization substantively reduces ethnic inequality, but mainly for countries with high predemocratic levels of inequality.

Provides context for contributions in a special journal issue on corruption & democratization by looking at the relationship between the latter & the state. While the state has been a major source, & resource, for corruption in developing & transitional countries, it is also the means by which democratization moves beyond the issue of the vote to delivering those services & processes that democratization promises. Refocusing or realigning the state, as well as preempting the potential for corruption, also inherent in the process of democratization, requires careful sequencing & coordination, while the state must reengage public participation in ways that supplement a reliance solely on the party system to achieve the purpose of democratization. 1 Table, 75 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this paper we look at the impact of broad policy reforms on the levels of corruption. We use a structural break approach to identify country-specific time periods in which significant shifts in corruption levels take place. We then correlate these times of change with a set of covariates with specific focus on the impact of democratization, and trade and equity market liberalization. We find robust support for the hypothesis that episodes of reduction in corruption levels tend to be correlated with democratization and equity market liberalization. Adapted from the source document.

How do we consolidate developing democratic regimes in the Global South so that the life expectancies of these regimes are considerably sustainable? What have been the key epistemological and normative shortcomings of the mainstream scholarship of democratization? How can we overcome these limitations? Is it necessary to consider the global political economy as a fertile source for deducing some explanatory variables that will help us understand the sources of democratic instability at the national-domestic spheres of political governance? In view of these questions, I contend that there are fundamental limitations in the mainstream scholarship on democratization that we have to overcome. In this essay, I critically appraise the nature of the democratization debate by positing that existing material inequities and injustices in new electoral democracies in the developing world are constitutive of global hegemonic interests that function as the critical determinants of democratic stability. Second, I propose some corrective suggestions that will perhaps inspire a new research agenda about democratization that should overcome the limitations of the current mainstream social science scholarship on democratization. Finally, I articulate some concluding substantive remarks on why we need to bring the global political economy back into our scholarly analyses of democratic consolidation. Adapted from the source document.

"The role of democracy promotion in US foreign policy has increased considerably in the last three decades, booming especially in the immediate years after the end of the Cold War. The rise of democracy promotion originated in a long historical tradition that saw exporting American political values as instrumental in securing US security and economic interests, an idea which was expressed freely once Cold War strategic constraints disappeared. Under Bill Clinton, there was an explicit attempt to do so by reframing American strategy in terms of 'democratic enlargement' and this book assesses the strategic use of democracy promotion in US foreign policy and its different outcomes during his presidency. Offering a comprehensive, global review of American democracy engagement with different regions of the world and key countries during a whole presidency, this book assesses how far the US has benefited from democracy promotion. It evaluates the instrumental value of democracy promotion for America by seeing whether the Clinton administration's efforts in this field, and their varying impacts to democratization abroad, were matched by progress in securing US strategic goals defined under enlargement, in particular reducing international conflicts and spreading economic liberalization around the world. The book explores how democracy became central to US post-Cold War strategy, how the Clinton administration developed the concept of democratic enlargement and tried to implement it, and why it remained influential on foreign policy throughout Clinton's presidency"--

Many scholars argue that democratization is conducive to the development of social welfare policies and that democracy brings about redistributive reform due to demands from the newly enfranchised poor. In reality, however, democratization does not necessarily bring about comprehensive social welfare reform. If not democratization, what explains social welfare expansion in developing countries? This article examines Indonesia, which began the process of democratization in 1998 following the fall of President soeharto, and which has since become a stable democracy with a consistently growing economy. More than a decade after soeharto's resignation, Indonesia started to implement a comprehensive healthcare policy. What explains the gap between the enactment and the implementation of this social policy reform? In answering this question, I argue that electoral competition alone does not shape social policy reform. Instead, social reform has institutional prerequisites, such as the broad-based organization of its advocates. A broad-based organization goes beyond its narrow interests, builds cross-class alliance and pressures the government. Without this prerequisite, democratization does not necessarily result in comprehensive social reforms. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

Summary. The article examines the main reasons and preconditions for the occupation of certain regions in eastern Ukraine. The influence and role of Russia in this military conflict are analyzed, and for the first time an empirical (applied) analysis of the democratization index in the temporarily occupied territories is carried out. Russia's aggressive policy in eastern Ukraine is part of a "hybrid" war against Ukraine that began in early 2014 with the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. With the support of Russia, the so-called "Donetsk and Luhansk" people's republics were created in eastern Ukraine. In essence, these are occupation military administrations that number more than 30,000 people, including regular troops and instructors of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. These are well-armed military formations, the number and combat capabilities of which are not inferior to the armies of individual European countries. In the temporarily occupied territories there is a total political and ideological "Russification", the purpose of which is the alienation and further isolation of these territories from official Kyiv. It should be noted that the hostilities, which have been going on for the sixth year, pose serious economic, political, legal, and geopolitical problems on Ukraine's path to consolidating the democratic regime and integrating with the European community. The change of political regime in 2013 in Ukraine opened up prospects for the consolidation of national identity and the restoration of the course of Euro-Atlantic integration, which was usually not accepted by official Moscow and personally by President Putin. It should be clearly understood that the war in Donbass, provoked by Russia, is the result of a systematic and long-term policy of Russia towards Ukraine as a country with a favorable geopolitical location and a kind of bridge between Europe and Russia. The article pays special attention to the theoretical and applied analysis of democratic development in Donbass. It should be noted that from 2020 "Freedom House" will start monitoring the territory and accordingly provide quantitative data on the democratization index with the appropriate analytical base and forecasts. ; У статті досліджено основні причини та передумови окупації окремих областей на сході України. Проаналізовано вплив та роль Росії в цьому військовому конфлікті, а також вперше здійснено емпіричний (прикладний) аналіз індексу демократизації на тимчасово окупованих територіях. Російська агресивна політика на сході України є складником «гібридної» війни проти України, що розпочалася на початку 2014 року з окупації Автономної республіки Крим. За підтримки Росії на сході України були створені так звані «Донецька та Луганська» народні республіки. По суті, це окупаційні військові адміністрації, що налічують більше 30 тисяч осіб, у тому числі і регулярні війська та інструктори збройних сил Російської Федерації. Це добре озброєні військові формування, чисельність та бойові можливості яких не поступаються арміям окремих європейських країн. На тимчасово окупованих територіях відбувається тотальна політична та ідеологічна «русифікація», метою якої є відчуження та подальша ізоляція цих територій від офіційного Києва. Зазначимо, що військові дії, які тривають шостий рік завдають серйозні економічні, політичні, правові, геополітичні проблеми на шляху України до консолідації демократичного режиму та інтеграцію з європейським співтовариством. Зміна політичного режиму у 2013 році в Україні відкрила перспективи для консолідації національної ідентичності та відновлення курсу на євроатлантичну інтеграцію, що, звичайно, ніяк не сприймала офіційна Москва та особисто президент В. Путін. Варто чітко усвідомлювати, що війна на Донбасі, спровокована Росією, – це результат системної та довгострокової політики Росії щодо України як держави з вигідним геополітичним розташуванням та своєрідного мосту між Європою та Росією. Окрема увага в статті присвячена теоретико-прикладному аналізу демократичного розвитку на Донбасі. Зазначимо, що з 2020 року організація «Freedom House» розпочинає моніторинг території та, відповідно, подає кількісні дані індексу демократизації з відповідною аналітичною базою та прогнозами.

Summary. The article examines the main reasons and preconditions for the occupation of certain regions in eastern Ukraine. The influence and role of Russia in this military conflict are analyzed, and for the first time an empirical (applied) analysis of the democratization index in the temporarily occupied territories is carried out. Russia's aggressive policy in eastern Ukraine is part of a "hybrid" war against Ukraine that began in early 2014 with the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. With the support of Russia, the so-called "Donetsk and Luhansk" people's republics were created in eastern Ukraine. In essence, these are occupation military administrations that number more than 30,000 people, including regular troops and instructors of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. These are well-armed military formations, the number and combat capabilities of which are not inferior to the armies of individual European countries. In the temporarily occupied territories there is a total political and ideological "Russification", the purpose of which is the alienation and further isolation of these territories from official Kyiv. It should be noted that the hostilities, which have been going on for the sixth year, pose serious economic, political, legal, and geopolitical problems on Ukraine's path to consolidating the democratic regime and integrating with the European community. The change of political regime in 2013 in Ukraine opened up prospects for the consolidation of national identity and the restoration of the course of Euro-Atlantic integration, which was usually not accepted by official Moscow and personally by President Putin. It should be clearly understood that the war in Donbass, provoked by Russia, is the result of a systematic and long-term policy of Russia towards Ukraine as a country with a favorable geopolitical location and a kind of bridge between Europe and Russia. The article pays special attention to the theoretical and applied analysis of democratic development in Donbass. It should be noted that from 2020 "Freedom House" will start monitoring the territory and accordingly provide quantitative data on the democratization index with the appropriate analytical base and forecasts. ; У статті досліджено основні причини та передумови окупації окремих областей на сході України. Проаналізовано вплив та роль Росії в цьому військовому конфлікті, а також вперше здійснено емпіричний (прикладний) аналіз індексу демократизації на тимчасово окупованих територіях. Російська агресивна політика на сході України є складником «гібридної» війни проти України, що розпочалася на початку 2014 року з окупації Автономної республіки Крим. За підтримки Росії на сході України були створені так звані «Донецька та Луганська» народні республіки. По суті, це окупаційні військові адміністрації, що налічують більше 30 тисяч осіб, у тому числі і регулярні війська та інструктори збройних сил Російської Федерації. Це добре озброєні військові формування, чисельність та бойові можливості яких не поступаються арміям окремих європейських країн. На тимчасово окупованих територіях відбувається тотальна політична та ідеологічна «русифікація», метою якої є відчуження та подальша ізоляція цих територій від офіційного Києва. Зазначимо, що військові дії, які тривають шостий рік завдають серйозні економічні, політичні, правові, геополітичні проблеми на шляху України до консолідації демократичного режиму та інтеграцію з європейським співтовариством. Зміна політичного режиму у 2013 році в Україні відкрила перспективи для консолідації національної ідентичності та відновлення курсу на євроатлантичну інтеграцію, що, звичайно, ніяк не сприймала офіційна Москва та особисто президент В. Путін. Варто чітко усвідомлювати, що війна на Донбасі, спровокована Росією, – це результат системної та довгострокової політики Росії щодо України як держави з вигідним геополітичним розташуванням та своєрідного мосту між Європою та Росією. Окрема увага в статті присвячена теоретико-прикладному аналізу демократичного розвитку на Донбасі. Зазначимо, що з 2020 року організація «Freedom House» розпочинає моніторинг території та, відповідно, подає кількісні дані індексу демократизації з відповідною аналітичною базою та прогнозами.

Edward Schneier. 2016. Muslim Democracy: Politics, Religion and Society in Indonesia, Turkey and the Islamic World. New York: Routledge.This book is one of the most recent and pivotal works in studying of democratization in Muslim world. The controversial inference from the Edward Schneier's work is that the variable of religion, especially Islam in this context, is not appropriate enough to explain the success or failure of democracy in Muslim majority countries. By using the mix method of statistics comparison and comparative case studies in Indonesia and Turkey, he argues that the difference of colonialization, history, geopolitics and the growth of developmental economy is crucial variable to elucidate the different outcome of democratization in Muslim countries. However, this book is like a generalization from prior works regarding this topic especially in explaining Islam and democracy in both countries. Some arguments fell down repeatedly with prior scholars such as the explanation of civil Islam to explain Indonesia democratization and the role of military-Islamist relations in depicting democratization in Turkey.DOI:10.15408/sdi.v24i1.5223