Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography Global Focus

161. Managing Conflict after Civil War: The Power-Sharing and Power-Dividing Approaches

Author:
Matthew Hoddie
Publication Date:
08-2014
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
This paper considers two institutional alternatives for managing conflict following the negotiated settlement of civil war. The most common set of institutional structures that former civil war combatants adopt are associated with power sharing. These power-sharing institutions may be constructed across the political, military, territorial, and economic dimensions of state power. Recent research suggests that post-civil war states that specify greater numbers of power-sharing institutions within their peace agreements tend to have a lower risk of the re-initiation of conflict. At the same time, critics of power sharing emphasize that these mechanisms lack a capacity to foster common identities among rivals and have characteristics that are inconsistent with the principles of democracy. An alternative to power sharing for states that are emerging from civil war is the adoption of power-dividing institutions. The core features of the power-dividing approach are limiting the scope of government authority and establishing a wide-ranging system of checks and balances intended to manage the competing interests within a country. In many respects, these institutional structures parallel those established by the constitution of the United States. Those who are sceptical about the power-dividing approach, however, point out that these institutions have not yet been adopted in any state emerging from civil war. It thus remains unclear how effective these structures would be at managing conflict within this particularly challenging environment.
Topic:
Civil War, Political Power Sharing, Democracy, Conflict, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

162. Conclusions of the 17th Forum 2000 Conference

Author:
Gareth Evans
Publication Date:
10-2013
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:
A constantly recurring theme in our discussions has been the extent to which a country’s, or group of countries’, distinctive history and culture impacts on what can be done and how quickly it can be done when it comes to both initiating and sustaining transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, and in particular whether revolutions are likely to consolidate or collapse.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Democracy, Conference, Transition, and Society
Political Geography:
Global Focus

163. Do Politicians Serve the One Percent? Evidence in OECD Countries

Author:
Pablo Torija
Publication Date:
01-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
City Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), University of London
Abstract:
Present social movements, as “Occupy Wall Street” or the Spanish “Indignados”, claim that politicians work for an economic elite, the 1%, that drives the world economic policies. In this paper we show through econometric analysis that these movements are accurate: politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite. In 2009 center-right parties maximized the happiness of the 100th-98th richest percentile and center-left parties the 100th-95th richest percentile. The situation has evolved from the seventies when politicians represented, approximately, the median voter.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Politics, Democracy, Representation, Elites, and Occupy Wall Street
Political Geography:
Global Focus

164. Forcing Democracy: Is Military Intervention for Regime Change Permissible?

Author:
Müge Kınacıoğlu
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
This article intends to go beyond the consequentialist utilitarian ap- proaches to forcible regime change by addressing the question of forcing democracy-building from an angle of appropriateness. It aims to analyze the admissibility of pro-democratic military interventions in international society by focusing on the UN and state practice. Is military intervention to remove a tyrannical regime permissible in international law? To what extend does international society condone an outside force to impose a democratic regime? Does the practice of the UN Security Council in promotion of democracy by force point to an emerging norm with regards to expansive concept of humanitarian intervention? To analyze such questions, this article first provides for a discussion of the concept of intervention. Second, it overviews the normative framework of the use of force in international relations. It continues with the analysis of unilateral and multilateral pro-democratic military interventions, and the UN Security Council practice of condemning, authorizing or consequently endorsing democratic regime change in the target states. In the conclusion part, the article assesses the legality and legitimacy issue regarding the pro-democratic intervention and regime change in light of main norms enshrined in the UN Charter and in general international law.
Topic:
United Nations, Regime Change, Democracy, Military Intervention, UN Security Council, and Intervention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

165. The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order

Author:
Nicolas Guilhot
Publication Date:
04-2005
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Columbia University Press
Abstract:
Has the international movement for democracy and human rights gone from being a weapon against power to part of the arsenal of power itself? Nicolas Guilhot explores this question in his penetrating look at how the U.S. government, the World Bank, political scientists, NGOs, think tanks, and various international organizations have appropriated the movement for democracy and human rights to export neoliberal policies throughout the world. His work charts the various symbolic, ideological, and political meanings that have developed around human rights and democracy movements. Guilhot suggests that these shifting meanings reflect the transformation of a progressive, emancipatory movement into an industry dominated by “experts” ensconced in positions of power. Guilhot’s story begins in the 1950s when U.S. foreign policy experts promoted human rights and democracy as part of a “democratic international” to fight the spread of communism. Later, the unlikely convergence of anti-Stalinist leftists and the nascent neoconservative movement found a place in the Reagan administration. These “State Department Socialists,” as they were known, created policies and organizations that provided financial and technical expertise to democratic movements and also supported authoritarian, anti-communist regimes, particularly in Latin America. Guilhot traces the intellectual and social trajectories of key academics, policymakers, and institutions, including Seymour M. Lipset, Jeane Kirkpatrick, the “Chicago Boys,” influenced by Milton Friedman, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ford Foundation. He examines the ways in which various individuals, or “double agents,” were able to occupy pivotal positions at the junction of academe, national, and international institutions, and activist movements. He also pays particular attention to the role of the social sciences in transforming the old anti-communist crusades into respectable international organizations that promoted progressive and democratic ideals, but did not threaten the strategic and economic goals of Western governments and businesses. Guilhot’s purpose is not to disqualify democracy promotion as a conspiratorial activity. Rather he offers new perspectives on the roles of various transnational human rights institutions and the policies they promote. Ultimately, his work proposes a new model for understanding the international politics of legitimate democratic order and the relation between popular resistance to globalization and the “Washington Consensus.”
Topic:
International Relations, Globalization, Human Rights, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus
Publication Identifier:
9780231504195
Publication Identifier Type:
ISBN

166. What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?

Author:
Robert A. Dahl
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
ROBERT A. DAHL examines the political institutions necessary for a democratic country. He argues that a large-scale democracy requires the following political institutions: elected officials; free, fair, and frequent elections; freedom of expression; alternative sources of information; associational autonomy; and inclusive citizenship.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Citizenship, Freedom of Expression, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

167. Is the Third Wave of Democratization Over? The Imperative of Consolidation

Author:
Larry Diamond
Publication Date:
03-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
In Kellogg Institute Working Paper no. 236 I charted the progress of what Huntington has called the 'third wave' of global democratic expansion, from 1974 to the present, distinguishing among the various types of democracy that have resulted. If I am right in my analysis, democracy, and especially liberal democracy, will not expand in the coming years. It could recede into a reverse wave. It could just keep persisting, becoming less liberal and more artificial in the process. Or it could stabilize and sink firm roots in countries where it is now present-and even liberal-but not secure. If the historical pattern is to be defied and a third reverse wave avoided, the overriding imperative in the coming years is to consolidate those democracies that have come into being during the 'third wave.' In this paper I examine various conceptual approaches to consolidation and identify a number of challenges faced by new and insecure democracies. The paper concludes with a discussion of future prospects for democracy worldwide.
Topic:
Democratization, Globalization, Democracy, and Consolidation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

168. Democracy 'with Adjectives': Conceptual Innovations in Comparative Research

Author:
David Collier and Steven Levitsky
Publication Date:
08-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The recent trend toward democratization in countries throughout the globe has challenged scholars to pursue two potentially contradictory goals: to develop a differentiated conceptualization of democracy that captures the diverse experiences of these countries; and to extend the analysis to this broad range of cases without 'stretching' the concept. This paper argues that this dual challenge has led to a proliferation of conceptual innovations, including hundreds of subtypes of democracy-i.e., democracy 'with adjectives.' The paper explores the strengths and weaknesses of three important strategies of innovation that have emerged: 'precising' the definition of democracy; shifting the overarching concept with which democracy is associated; and generating various forms of subtypes. Given the complex structure of meaning produced by these strategies for refining the concept of democracy, we conclude by offering an old piece of advice with renewed urgency: It is imperative that scholars situate themselves in relation to this structure of meaning by clearly defining and explicating the conception of democracy they are employing.
Topic:
Globalization, Politics, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus