The bonds of democratic politics

This paper is an attempt to analyze bonds and their relevance within the confines of economics. They are discussed as both exogenous and endogenous variables. More specifically, the bonds of democratic politics are compared with those of non-democratic politics. It is argued that only those societies that have at their disposition certain kinds of bonds will be able to sustain democracy. It is further argued that the differential effects of democratic vs. non-democratic regimes on the respective bonds are rather weak. But then again, different kinds of democratic institutions might well have an effect on the prevalent bonds found in a society.

The Proactive International Dimension and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes

There is international consensus among scholars that democratic transitions are multicausal processes in which both internal and international variables are involved (Pridham 1991, 1995; Whitehead 1996; Schmitter 1996; Linz and Stepan 1996; Carothers 1999; Morlino and Magen 2008; Grilli di Cortona 2009). This chapter is limited, on the one hand, to the dependent variable consisting solely of the crisis/breakdown/transformation of non-democratic regimes in the Third Wave of democratization, and, on the other hand, to an independent variable identified solely with the international dimension of democratic transition. This factor, which can be termed the Proactive International Dimension (PID), specifically concerns that combination of actions or processes, produced by one or more international actors, that, intentionally or not, cause or contribute to the crisis/breakdown/transformation of a non-democratic regime.

Towards participatory political theology: democratic consolidation in Southeastern Europe and the role of Eastern Christianity in the process

This thesis defends the position that the Eastern Orthodoxy has the potential to develop, on the basis of its core concepts and doctrines, a new political theology that is participatory, personalist and universalist. This participatory political theology, as I name it, endorses modern democracy and the values of civic engagement. It enhances the process of democracy-building and consolidation in the SEE countries through cultivating the ethos of participation and concern with the common good among and the recognition of the dignity and freedom of the person. This political-theological model is developed while analyzing critically the traditional models of church-state relations (the symphonia model corresponding to the medieval empire and the Christian nation model corresponding to the nation-state) as being instrumentalized to serve the political goals of non-democratic regimes. The participatory political-theological model is seen as corresponding to the conditions of the constitutional democratic state. The research is justified by the fact the Eastern Orthodoxy has been a dominant religiouscultural force in the European South East for centuries, thus playing a significant role in the process of creation of the medieval and modern statehood of the SEE countries. The analysis employs comparative constitutional perspectives on democratic transition and consolidation in the SEE region with the theoretical approaches of political theology and Eastern Orthodox theology. The conceptual basis for the political-theological synthesis is found in the concept and doctrines of the Eastern Orthodoxy (theosis and synergy, ecclesia and Eucharist, conciliarity and catholicity, economy and eschatology) which emphasize the participatory, personalist and communal dimensions of the Orthodox faith and practice. The paradigms of revealing the political-theological potential of these concepts are the Eucharistic ecclesiology and the concept of divine-human communion as defining the body of Orthodox theology. The thesis argues that with its ethos of openness and engagement the participatory political theology presupposes political systems that are democratic, inclusive, and participatory, respecting the rights and the dignity of the person. The political theology developed here calls for a transformation and change of democratic systems towards better realization of their personalist and participatory commitments. In the context of the SEE countries the participatory political theology addresses the challenges posed by alternative authoritarian political theologies practiced in neighboring regions.

Más allá de una distinción dicotómica del apoyo a la democracia: diversos perfiles de no demócratas

El apoyo ciudadano a la democracia constituye un requisito fundamental de los modernos regímenes democráticos, tanto respecto de su estabilidad y consolidación como de la calidad de su funcionamiento. En este marco, la legitimidad democrática pertenece a la dimensión de creencias ciudadanas respecto de que la democracia y sus instituciones son las más apropiadas (de hecho, las únicas aceptables) como régimen de gobierno. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, no todos los ciudadanos expresan este conjunto de actitudes positivas hacia el régimen democrático. En gran parte de las nuevas democracias un número considerable de personas o bien no entregan un apoyo abierto a la democracia o, expresan actitudes contradictorias hacia los regímenes democráticos. Este grupo de individuos ha sido normalmente tratado por la literatura como un solo grupo homogéneo, que responde sin más consideraciones a la etiqueta de “no demócratas”. Sin embargo, tal como esta investigación pretende demostrar, existen razones teóricas y empíricas para esperar que no haya un único perfil de ciudadanos que no apoya la democracia. Por el contrario, sería posible encontrar y analizar diversos perfiles de “no demócratas”, que explican sus diferencias de acuerdo a distintas objeciones hacia la democracia. Esto es, las razones que se tienen para no entregar un apoyo difuso a la democracia no serían las mismas en todos los casos. De esta forma se derivan las siguientes preguntas de investigación: ¿Cuáles son los argumentos teóricos y empíricos que permiten distinguir diversos tipos de “no demócratas”? ¿Cuáles son las distintas objeciones hacia la democracia (razones) que configuran estos perfiles diversos? Sin embargo, no basta con responder sólo a estas preguntas. Es necesario avanzar en esta línea argumental, preguntándose respecto de la relevancia de distinguir distintos perfiles de “no demócratas”. Así, surge una tercera pregunta: ¿Bajo qué circunstancias tiene relevancia efectuar una distinción entre quienes no apoyan la democracia?

A mérsékelt iszlamista mozgalmak szerepe az "arab tavaszt" követő politikai átmenetben (The Role of Moderate Islamist Movements in the Political Transition Following the Arab Spring)

Up to January 2011 authoritarian political regimes in the Middle East had widely been considered stable due to the armed forces, the underdeveloped political institutions, the economic embeddedness of the regimes, the neo-patrimonial structure of the Arab societies and, eventually the characteristics of Islam. Middle Eastern political systems are often considered to belong to a special sub-group of non-democratic regimes called “liberalized autocracies”. The 2011 events show that there is a new, as yet non-defined political structure emerging. Although there are different interpretations of the developments, there is a consensus on the determinant role of the Islamist organizations in the development of the new political structure. The results of the Egyptian and Tunisian parliamentary elections show that the secular political parties could not attract the public, while in Tunisia the long forbidden Hizb an-Nahda could form a government. In Egypt Hizb al-Hurriya established by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011 won almost half of the parliamentary mandates, and to a great surprise, the Salafi Hizb an-Nour also received 24.3% of the votes. On the basis of the above developments the thesis of the Islamist re-organization of the Middle East, i.e. of a new wave of Islamism was elaborated, according to which the main political winners of the revolts in the Arab countries are the Islamist organizations, which could step in and fill in the political vacuum. While some speak of an Islamist autumn or Islamist winter as the result of the Arab Spring, others prefer the term Islamic revolutions.

Disciplining democracy: United Nations peacekeeping, international security and democratization in the post -Cold War era

After the end of the Cold War, democratization and good governance became the organizing concepts for activities of the United Nations, regional organizations and states in the fields of peace, development and security. How can this increasing interest in democratization and its connection with international security be explained? This dissertation applies the theoretical tools developed by Michel Foucault in his discussions of disciplinarity and government to the analysis of the United Nations debate on democracy in the 1990s, and of two United Nations pro-democracy peacekeeping operations and their aftermath: the United Nations interventions in Haiti and Croatia. It probes “how” certain techniques of power came into being and describes their effects, using as data the texts that elaborate the United Nations understanding of democracy and the texts that constitute peacekeeping. ^ In the face of the proliferation of unpredictable threats in the last decades of the twentieth century a new form of international power emerged. Order in the international arena increasingly was maintained through activities aimed at reducing risk and increasing predictability through the normalization of “rogue” states. The dissertation shows that in the context of these activities, which included but were not limited to UN peacekeeping, normality was identified with democracy, non-democratic regimes with international threats, and democratization with international security. “Good governance” doctrines translated the political debate on democracy into the technical language of functioning state institutions. International organizations adopted good governance as the framework that made democratization a universal task within the reach of their expertise. In Haiti, the United Nations engaged in efforts to transform punishment institutions (the judiciary, police and the prison) into disciplined and disciplinary machines. In Croatia, agreements signed in the context of peacekeeping established in detail the rules of functioning of administrations and the monitoring mechanisms for their implementation. However, in Haiti, the institutions promoted were not sustainable. And in Croatia reforms are stalled by lack of consensus. ^ This dissertation puts efforts to bring about democracy through peacekeeping in the context of a specific modality of power and suggests caution in engaging in universal normalizing endeavors. ^

¿Cambiar para seguir igual? la experiencia de la oposición política rusa: del legado de la Perestroika a la democracia soberana

El colapso de la Unión Soviética a inicios de los años noventa del siglo pasado, constituyó para Rusia un punto de partida para su reconfiguración y reestructuración como un país independiente. En este proceso de reconfiguración y reestructuración Rusia ha adoptado diferentes elementos de la cultura política occidental; situación que resulta de gran interés, toda vez que en los años de la Guerra Fría la Rusia comunista encarnaba la antítesis de Occidente a nivel ideológico, político y económico. Esta investigación pretende estudiar la oposición política en Rusia entre los años 2004 y 2012, y, con ello, presentar algunos elementos clave en la comprensión de las acciones, relaciones e influencia de los diferentes actores del nuevo sistema político de esta potencia mundial.

Work ethic and the legacies of political regimes

This article studies the cross-country differences in work ethic and claims that different political regimes transmitted different work ethics that still persist today. Using the World Values Survey and starting our political regime analysis in 1900, we find that Democratic regimes promote more effectively work relevance and competitiveness than Autocratic and Anocratic regimes, and that the political regime history of the country is more important than the present level of democracy. Moreover, we prove that this differences were transmitted through generations by parents, who optimally choose what work ethic to transmit taking into account their own values.

Autonomy of the state and development in the democratic capitalism

The paper argues that if the state, as an expression and part of a pact of domination, operates as a corporate actor with relative autonomy, vision and capacity to promote the development, it is a key institution to the economic transformation. Supported in the neo-Marxism, exposes the limits of institutionalist approach of autonomy of the state to explain its origin, but does not rule out this approach. Maintains that the class-balance theory of the state may explain its relative autonomy and at the same time aid in understanding the historical experiences of social-developmentalist state action, particularly in the social democratic regimes and in the current Latin America.

Welche Typen von Autokratien sind leistungsfähiger und warum? : eine empirische Analyse auf Grundlage der Selektoratstheorie = Which type of autocracy performs better, and why?

Performanzunterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Autokratietypen wie Monarchien, Militär-, Ein-Parteien- und begrenzten Mehr-Parteien-Regimen sind bis auf wenige Ausnahmen bisher relativ unerforscht. Deshalb widmet sich diese Arbeit folgenden Forschungsfragen: Gibt es Performanzunterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Autokratietypen? Wenn ja, wie gestalten sich diese und wie lassen sie sich erklären? Auf Grundlage der Selektoratstheorie von Bueno de Mesquite et al. wird die Hypothese aufgestellt, dass die Performanz politischer Regime mit der Größe der Winning Coalition steigt. Da verschiedene Autokratietypen unterschiedlich große Winning Coalitions haben, wird angenommen, dass es deutliche Performanzunterschiede zwischen diesen Typen gibt. Als Performanzkriterien dienen in dieser Arbeit wirtschaftlicher Wohlstand, soziale Sicherheit und ökologische Nachhaltigkeit. Aus diesen drei Kriterien wird zusätzlich ein Indikator allgemeiner Performanz gebildet. Die empirische Untersuchung erfolgt mit den Daten des Quality-of-Governement-Datensatzes und erstreckt sich über 140 autokratische Länder im Zeitraum von 1972 bis 2010. Die Daten werden mittels Time-Series-Cross-Section-Regressionen analysiert. Die Ergebnisse der Analysen entsprechen nur teilweise den Erwartungen. Die Größe der Winning Coalition wirkt positiv auf die wirtschaftliche Wohlfahrt und die soziale Sicherheit und damit auch auf die allgemeine Performanz aus. Entgegen den Erwartungen sinkt die ökologische Performanz jedoch mit steigender Größe der Winning Coalition. Auch die Befunde bezüglich der Performanz verschiedener Autokratietypen entsprechen nicht den Erwartungen. So sind Ein-Parteien-Regime insgesamt leistungsfähiger als Mehr-Parteien-Regime, Militär-Regime und Monarchien. Militär-Regime sind leistungsfähiger als Monarchien und tendenziell auch als Mehr-Parteien-Regime.

The Beauty and the Beast. A Tale of Democratic Crises and Globalization

There are two competing hypotheses concerning the connection between democracy and globalization. The critics hold globalization responsible for an ongoing crisis of democracy. The enthusiasts highlight the positive contributions of financial openness and international political cooperation on the development of democracy. In this contribution the author investigates the interrelation between globalization and the quality of established democracies. He introduces the Democracy Barometer, a new instrument that measures the quality of democracy in 30 established democratic regimes between 1995 and 2005 and that explicitly does not measure sustainable government because it aims at serving as dependent as well as independent variable to explain different economic, societal and natural environment, i.e. sustainable development. Based on this instrument, the author first shows that one cannot speak of an ongoing crisis of (established) democracies. Second, he also conducts several multilevel analyses to model the different developments of the quality of democracy in the different countries. The author then shows that economy, i.e. economic globalization indeed has a positive impact on the quality of democracy. However, this impact is stronger in stable, i.e. older than in younger established democracies. Further investigations show that a high quality of democracy also goes hand in hand with societal and environmental performance.

Democratic purgatory: The failure of democracy in Venezuela

This research provides an understanding of the conditions that presage the failure of consolidated democratic political regimes through constitutional processes. In seeking to answer the question of how democracy might fail through democratic means, this study has revealed a gap in the literature on democratization. Venezuela was selected as a heuristic case study to explain this phenomenon. Heuristic case studies place less emphasis on the more configurative or descriptive elements of the case itself, and instead see the case as a point of departure for the formulations of theoretical propositions. While in-case hypotheses are possible, heuristic case studies make it an explicit research plan to tease out mechanisms that exist in a particular case study that might survive in other situations. ^ This study demonstrates that the elements in society that act as direct participants in the establishment of a democratic political system are able to maintain their position in the new order largely through an expansion of their ability to meet popular demands through clientelistic arrangements. While these corporatist groups may serve to facilitate social mobilization during the establishment of democratic regimes, they do so only in so far as they can maintain social control of in-group membership without fully providing for representative democracy. Once these democratic institutions are consolidated as key parts of the democratic structure, these corporatist arrangements provide for a type of unstable democratic purgatory: democracy is not fully representative, yet it is not completely unresponsive to the demands of the electorate. ^ The condition of democratic purgatory produces a paradox whereby democracy can be undemocratic under certain conditions. The stability of these regimes allows for democratic consolidation, despite the undemocratic basis of legitimacy. While these regimes can undergo consolidation, ultimately, this condition is unstable: either these regimes must establish an endogenous basis of political legitimacy (one that is not simply a function of the corporatist/clientelistic political structure), or the democracy will suffer a qualitative decline that may result in a democratic breakdown. Furthermore, this study finds that the viability of any type of democratic regime rests upon its adaptability to ensure adequate representativeness. ^

DEMOCRACY ISN'T THAT SMART (BUT WE CAN MAKE IT SMARTER): ON LANDEMORE'S DEMOCRATIC REASON

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016In her recent book, Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore argues that, when evaluated epistemically, “a democratic decision procedure is likely to be a better decision procedure than any non-democratic decision procedures, such as a council of experts or a benevolent dictator” (p. 3). Landemore's argument rests heavily on studies of collective intelligence done by Lu Hong and Scott Page. These studies purport to show that cognitive diversity – differences in how people solve problems – is actually more important to overall group performance than average individual ability – how smart the individual members are. Landemore's argument aims to extrapolate from these results to the conclusion that democracy is epistemically better than any non-democratic rival. I argue here that Hong and Page's results actually undermine, rather than support, this conclusion. More specifically, I argue that the results do not show that democracy is better than any non-democratic alternative, and that in fact, they suggest the opposite – that at least some non-democratic alternatives are likely to epistemically outperform democracy.