Democratization and Autocratization
Blog: Soziopolis. Gesellschaft beobachten
Call for Papers for a Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 11–13, 2024. Deadline: April 10, 2024
Blog: Soziopolis. Gesellschaft beobachten
Call for Papers for a Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 11–13, 2024. Deadline: April 10, 2024
This book provides an extended examination of Nietzsche and Tocqueville's political thought, with an eye to shedding light on history's democratic drift. It looks not only to a future that filled both thinkers with dread, but also to an aristocratic past that has been all but drowned beneath democracy's shallow waters
"This book moves comparison beyond a narrow focus on democratization to better understand politics in developing regions of the world. Using Africa as empirical reference, it shows the gaps in knowledge left behind by the narrow application of democratic theory in recent decades"--
"Democratization of Africa and Its Impact on the Global Economy delves into the intricate relationship between democracy, governance, and development in Africa, shedding light on the continent's progress and its implications for the global economy. From its historical context rooted in colonialism and apartheid regimes to the present-day challenges of weak governance and underdevelopment, this book critically examines the factors that have shaped Africa's political and socioeconomic landscape.This book offers a comprehensive exploration of democracy, governance, and development in Africa. It delves into various topics such as models of democracy, electoral systems, political leadership, state building, democratic deficits, political violence, corruption, and the challenges of democratic consolidation. Additionally, it examines the significance of democratic governance, good governance principles, civil society engagement, and political accountability in shaping Africa's political landscape. Through a multi-disciplinary lens encompassing political science, development studies, anthropology, sociology, international relations, and public administration, the book offers a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to engage in critical dialogue and propose innovative strategies for Africa's renewal."--
In: Srpska politička misao: Serbian political thought, Band 83, Heft 1, S. 101-117
The main research objective of the article was to assess the nature and the way of the transformation of Russia's political system over the past 23 years. The process of transformation taking place there, was analyzed in the context of Samuel Huntington's Third Wave paradigm, which, in the opinion of the author, was considered the most corresponding to the changes occurring in Russian Federation after 2000. In connection with the above, an attempt was made to answer the following research questions: Firstly, what was the specificity of the democratization of the political system during last 23 years in Russia? Secondly, whether a de facto retreat from democratization began in the first decades of the 21st century? Thirdly, whether the political system of the Russian Federation can now be considered fully authoritarian? Democratic transformation in Russia in the near future is assessed as problematic, and the possible scenario of such events seems non-representational at this moment. As can be seen from the in-depth analysis, democratization is not a state achieved once and for all, it is an extremely complex form and requires constant, systematic improvement and subjective participation of citizens, which the political system of Russia is still not characterized by. The most useful research methods that author used in writing this article were the case study, the decision-making and systemic methods.
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ
ISSN: 1538-165X
Abstract
This review article leverages Isabela Mares' Protecting the Ballot: How First-Wave Democracies Ended Electoral Corruption as a jumping off point to consider how to construct a dialogue between scholars of contemporary electoral malfeasance and historical political economists. It makes two main points. First, because both scholars of history and of the contemporary world are usually engaged in mixed-method case study research, both grapple with issues of case generalizability and external validity. This produces a naturally shared research agenda, although one that has largely gone unrecognized. Generalizability would be improved if both groups mapped their cases onto larger distributions of the phenomenon of interest. Second, the very substantial differences between party systems of first-wave and recent democratizers suggest that political elites will support reforms aimed at improving election integrity differently across the two periods. Contemporary electoral competition is unlikely to naturally give rise to the emergence of programmatic politics, instead locking parties into clientelism and various types of election malfeasance. I discuss what might be required for politicians today to support reforms aimed at curbing election malfeasance, and when the shift to programmatic politics becomes in the political interests of elected officials.
This book provides balanced, critical, and comprehensive coverage of the theories and realities of autocratization and democratization. It sketches developments in the conceptions of democracy, discusses how to distinguish between different forms of political rule, and maps the development of democracy and autocracy across space and time. The book reviews the major debates and findings about domestic and international causes and consequences of democratization and autocratization. It synthesizes theoretical models and empirical relationships based on an explicit comparative perspective, which focuses on similarities and differences across countries and historical periods.
World Affairs Online
This book provides balanced, critical, and comprehensive coverage of the theories and realities of autocratization and democratization. It sketches developments in the conceptions of democracy, discusses how to distinguish between different forms of political rule, and maps the development of democracy and autocracy across space and time. The book reviews the major debates and findings about domestic and international causes and consequences of democratization and autocratization. It synthesizes theoretical models and empirical relationships based on an explicit comparative perspective, which focuses on similarities and differences across countries and historical periods.
In: Journal of current Southeast Asian affairs
ISSN: 1868-4882
Though scholarship on Philippine politics has focused on either structures or elites, political participation and inaction have become equally pertinent issues, especially in times of political change. The Philippines shows a curious juxtaposition between high levels of electoral participation in the general citizenry and mass political inaction among the majority of Filipinos outside the ballot. For this reason, we would try to make sense of this paradox by analyzing political disempowerment itself and how it is linked to political participation. Hence, we raise and address the question, what challenges do political disempowerment as political powerlessness and cynicism posit against democratization in the Philippines? The trends captured in the 2nd–5th waves of the Asia Barometer Survey suggest that political disempowerment is a vicious cycle driven by perceived dis/incentives to political participation without depoliticizing citizens. Political spectatorship is the key to understanding the virtuousness or viciousness of this cycle.
In: Frontiers in political science, Band 6
ISSN: 2673-3145
This piece addresses the political dimension of sustainability in the agricultural bioeconomy by focusing on power, participation, and property rights around key technologies. Bioeconomy policies aim to establish economic systems based on renewable resources such as plants and microorganisms to reduce dependence on fossil resources. To achieve this, they rely on economic growth and increased biomass production through high-tech innovations. This direction has sparked important critique of the environmental and social sustainability of such projects. However, little attention has been paid in the bioeconomy literature to the political dimension surrounding key precision technologies such as data-driven precision agriculture (PA) or precision breeding technologies using new genomic techniques (NGT). The political dimension includes questions of power, participation, and property rights regarding these technologies and the distribution of the benefits and burdens they generate. This lack of attention is particularly pertinent given the recurring and promising claims that precision technologies not only enhance environmental sustainability, but also contribute to the democratization of food and biomass production. This contribution addresses this claim in asking whether we can really speak of a democratization of the agricultural bioeconomy through these precision technologies. Drawing on (own) empirical research and historical evidence, it concludes that current patterns are neither driving nor indicative of a democratization. On the contrary, corporate control, unequal access, distribution, and property rights over data and patents point to few gains for small firms and breeders, but to a reproduction of farmers' dependencies, and less transparency for consumers.
In: The African review: a journal of African politics, development and international affairs, Band 51, Heft 1-2, S. 195-201
ISSN: 1821-889X
In: Democratization, Band 31, Heft 3, S. 575-595
ISSN: 1743-890X
In: Democratization, S. 1-2
ISSN: 1743-890X
In: Democratization, S. 1-2
ISSN: 1743-890X
In: Democratization, S. 1-2
ISSN: 1743-890X