Suchergebnisse

In the literature on democratization the mainstream of theoretical and empirical consolidology uses the dichotomy autocracy versus democracy. Democracy is generally conceived of as 'electoral democracy'. This simple dichotomy does not allow a distinction between consolidated liberal democracies and their diminished sub-types. However, over half of all the new electoral democracies represent specific variants of diminished sub-types of democracy, which can be called defective democracies. Starting from the root concept of embedded democracies, which consists of five interdependent partial regimes (electoral regime, political rights, civil rights, horizontal accountability, effective power to govern), the article distinguishes between four diminished sub-types of defective democracy: exclusive democracy, illiberal democracy, delegative democracy and tutelary democracy. It can be shown that defective democracies are by no means necessarily transitional regimes. They tend to form stable links to their economic and societal environment and are often seen by considerable parts of the elites and the population as an adequate institutional solution to the specific problems of governing 'effectively'. As long as this equilibrium between problems, context and power lasts, defective democracies will survive for protracted periods of time.

"The development of the term and the analytical concept of totalitarianism have gone through several stages since the 1920s. However, even in its most sophisticated
form, the version seen in Friedrich/ Brzezinski, the concept exhibits substantial systematic classification problems and analytical weaknesses. This article attempts to frame the type of totalitarian regime within a general typology of political
regimes. Special attention is dedicated to the problem of distinguishing autocratic from democratic rule, and of carving out the systematic difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes within the basic type of autocracy. Despite a systematic typology, all grey zones between the basic types cannot be clarified. Therefore, the typology should be complemented by a continuum on which regimes as they exist in reality, can be placed between the polar types of 'ideal democracy' and 'perfect totalitarianism'." (author's abstract)

Demokratie und soziale Gerechtigkeit, definiert als die gerechte Verteilung von Möglichkeiten und Lebenschancen, passen zusammen. Empirische Daten von 124 Ländern unterstützen die These, dass demokratische Systeme, welche politische Rechte und bürgerliche Freiheiten gewähren, Armut eher erfolgreich bekämpfen, den Zugriff auf Bildung verbessern, Geschlechtergleichheit sichern und soziale Sicherheit schaffen. Dieser Zusammenhang gilt auch für regionale Vergleiche und vermittelt zusätzliche gute Begründungen für die universalen Vorzüge der Demokratie. (ICAÜbers)