The democratization process under way in Mauritania since 1991 seems to be breaking down. This article argues that the obvious neo-patrimonial nature of the regime and the managed transition have limited the possibilities for installing democracy for the time being. President Maouya Sid'Ahmed Ould Taya and his dominant party have encouraged a tribal revival. Clientelism and neo-patrimonial practices have invaded the new institutions. Opposition parties are weak and have difficulty in asserting themselves and the political use of tribalism threatens democracy. (Democratization - www.frankcass.com /DÜI)
Contends that the Orange Revolution that erupted in Ukraine at the end of Leonid Kuchma's presidency resulted from tensions that had been growing over the years. Although Kuchma introduced a national currency & monetary stabilization, he abandoned many of his campaign promises, & failed to bring about any other reforms to bolster Ukraine's failing economy. Instead, he expanded his power base, strengthened the presidency, & weakened the role of parliament. Strategies Kuchma used to bolster his authority are examined, along with his relationship with the oligarchs; the consolidation of state power; & the military's subordinate role in politics. Attention is given to the nature & impact of Ukraine's political parties, non-governmental organizations, & public attitudes. The Orange Revolution brought throngs of people into the streets to protest the violation of their democratic rights by an authoritarian regime that was later ousted by legal means. The popular revolt & electoral breakthrough have presented Ukraine with an opportunity to create a culture of democracy, respect for the rule of law, & a modern civil service. J. Lindroth
This paper is a critical interrogation of the dominant Africanist discourse on African state forms and its relationship with what is seen as pervasive state failure on the continent. Through an examination of the neo-patrimonialist literature on African states, this paper argues that what informs such problematic scholarship, inscribed on the conceptual and analytical landscape of the Weberian ideal-typical conception of state rationality is a vulgar universalism that tends to disregard specific historical experiences while subsuming them under the totalitarian grip of a Eurocentric unilinear evolutionist logic. The narrative that such scholarship produces not only constructs a mechanistic conception of state rationality based on the experience of the Western liberal state as the expression of the universal, but also denies the specificity of the continent's historical experience, by either denying its independent conceptual existence or vulgarising its social and political formations and realities, dismissing them as aberrant, deviant, deformed and of lesser quality. Immanent in this move is the ideological effacement and the rendering invisible, hence the normalisation of the relational and structural logic, of past histories of colonial domination and contemporary imperial power relations within which the states in Africa have been historically constituted and continue to be reconstituted and reimagined. When exactly does a state fail, the paper asks. Could what is defined as state failure actually be part of the processes of state formation or reconfiguration, which are misrecognised or misinterpreted because of the poverty of Africanist social science and ethnocentric biases of the particular lenses used to understand them? [Le néo-patrimonialisme et le discours de la défaillance de l'état en Afrique ]. Cet article est une interrogation critique du discours africaniste dominant sur les formes d'état africain et sa relation avec ce qui est considéré comme une défaillance persistante de l'état sur le continent. A travers un examen de la littérature néo-patrimonialiste sur les états africains, cet article soutient que ce qui est à la base de ces savoirs problématiques, inscrit dans le paysage conceptuel et analytique de la conception idéal-typique wébérienne de la rationalité étatique, est un universalisme vulgaire qui tend à ignorer les expériences historiques spécifiques tout en les subsumant sous l'emprise totalitaire d'une logique évolutionniste unilinéaire euro-centrique. Le récit que ces études permet de produire non seulement construit une conception mécaniste de la rationalité étatique basée sur l'expérience de l'état libéral occidental comme l'expression de l'universel, mais aussi nie la spécificité de l'expérience historique du continent soit en niant son existence indépendante conceptuelle, ou en vulgarisant ses formations et ses réalités sociales et politiques, les rejetant comme aberrantes, déviantes, difformes et de moindre qualité. Immanent dans ce mouvement sont l'effacement idéologique et le rendement invisible qui conduisent à la normalisation de la logique relationnelle et structurelle des histoires passées de la domination coloniale et des relations contemporaine de pouvoir impériale, dans laquelle les états en Afrique ont été historiquement constitués et continuent à être reconstitués et ré-imaginés. Quand, exactement, est-ce que l'état échoue, se demande l'article? Ce qui est défini comme état défaillant pourrait-il faire partie du processus de formation ou de reconfiguration de l'état, qui sont méconnues ou mal interprétées à cause de la pauvreté des sciences sociales et les préjugés ethnocentriques africanistes des lentilles notamment utilisées pour les comprendre? Afrique; états défaillants; types idéaux; néo-patrimonialisme; formation de l'état; défaillance de l'état; universalisme
How do subnational authoritarian enclaves emerge (or survive) in a democratic transition at the federal level? How can they endure large-scale social protests, like the one that shook Oaxaca in 2006? While federal tolerance for subnational authoritarian practices is a necessary condition, it is insufficient in itself to explain why subnational political systems sustain and eventually reproduce authoritarian practices in the first place. In this article, therefore, I focus on the internal dimension of subnational authoritarianism. I argue that, because of its reliance on two distinct sources of legitimacy, Oaxaca's neo-patrimonial domination system was able to respond to the formal democratizing pressures emanating from the federal transition without losing its authoritarian nature. This process of hybridization transformed Oaxacan institutions, but left social structures and the political dynamics that emerge from them – the sources of subnational authoritarianism – almost intact. By exploring the evolution of neo-patrimonialism and hybridization in Oaxaca from a theoretical perspective, I address the issues of change and continuity in the emergence of subnational authoritarian enclaves, in Mexico and elsewhere.
How do subnational authoritarian enclaves emerge (or survive) in a democratic transition at the federal level? How can they endure large-scale social protests, like the one that shook Oaxaca in 2006? While federal tolerance for subnational authoritarian practices is a necessary condition, it is insufficient in itself to explain why subnational political systems sustain and eventually reproduce authoritarian practices in the first place. In this article, therefore, the author focusses on the internal dimension of subnational authoritarianism. He argues that, because of its reliance on two distinct sources of legitimacy, Oaxaca's neo-patrimonial domination system was able to respond to the formal democratizing pressures emanating from the federal transition without losing its authoritarian nature. This process of hybridization transformed Oaxacan institutions, but left social structures and the political dynamics that emerge from them - the sources of subnational authoritarianism - almost intact. By exploring the evolution of neo-patrimonialism and hybridizationin Oaxaca from a theoretical perspective, the author addresses the issues of change and continuity in the emergence of subnational authoritarian enclaves, in Mexico and elsewhere. (GIGA)
How do subnational authoritarian enclaves emerge (or survive) in a democratic transition at the federal level? How can they endure large-scale social protests, like the one that shook Oaxaca in 2006? While federal tolerance for subnational authoritarian practices is a necessary condition, it is insufficient in itself to explain why subnational political systems sustain and eventually reproduce authoritarian practices in the first place. In this article, therefore, I focus on the internal dimension of subnational authoritarianism. I argue that, because of its reliance on two distinct sources of legitimacy, Oaxaca's neo-patrimonial domination system was able to respond to the formal democratizing pressures emanating from the federal transition without losing its authoritarian nature. This process of hybridization transformed Oaxacan institutions, but left social structures and the political dynamics that emerge from them - the sources of subnational authoritarianism - almost intact By exploring the evolution of neo-patrimonialism and hybridization in Oaxaca from a theoretical perspective, I address the issues of change and continuity in the emergence of subnational authoritarian enclaves, in Mexico and elsewhere. Adapted from the source document.
