Suchergebnisse

After the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump, a widespread perception emerged that the world was witnessing a crisis of liberal democracy. Not surprisingly, said crisis is at the core of a new batch of political science literature. This review article takes stock of some key contributions to the literature, namely Albright (2018), Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018), Norris and Inglehart (2018), Runciman (2018a) and Eatwell and Goodwin (2018). My key argument is that the reviewed books are fundamentally limited by problematic ontological assumptions stemming from artificial disciplinary boundaries. Privileging either individual traits of authoritarian leaders or the very specific experience of the USA or the UK, they fail to capture varied, yet deeply interconnected international expressions of contemporary authoritarianism. Following Justin Rosenberg's open invitation to place the concept of multiplicity at the centre of a renewed research agenda, I suggest that a more holistic take on the crisis of democracy requires a renewed attention to inter-societal dynamics.

Stephen Kotkin is surely right that Russia cannot be understood fully through the lens of its elections and that it is conceptually risky for political scientists to treat U.S. democracy as its analytical point of departure. He also makes a good point that governance, institutional quality, and actual state performance need to be studied along with civil society and political parties.Fortunately, today's field of political science offers a wide range of works that agree. Without producing a long bibliography, we might mention Kathryn Stoner-Weiss's and Daniel Treisman's recent books on center-periphery relations and governance; Maria Popova's and Peter H. Solomon's research into the Russian judiciary; Lucan Way's study of the institutional underpinnings of authoritarianism; and lively debates on the state's management of the economy and its ability to provide social services.