Democratic theory and comparative politics

"The present text is, basically, a revision of democratic theory from the perspective of its inadequacies for including into its scope many of the recently democratized countries, as well as some older democracies located outside of the Northwestern quadrant of the world. After warning that it is a first step in a larger and more ambitious endeavor, the paper begins by critically examining various definitions of democracy, especially those that, claiming to follow Schumpeter, are deemed to be 'minimalist', or 'procesualist.' On this basis, a realistic and restricted, but not minimalist, definition of a democratic regime is proposed. After this step, the connections of this topic with several others are explored, including political, social, and welfare rights; the state, especially in its legal dimension; and some characteristics of the overall social context. The main grounding factor that results from these explorations is the conception of agency, especially as it is expressed in the legal system of existing democracies - although the effectiveness of this system and of its underlying conceptions of agency vary quite widely across cases. The approach of the text emphasizes legal and historical factors, while also tracing, in several comparative excursi, some important differences among various kinds of cases. The main conclusions are stated in several propositions, the major thrust of which entails an invitation toward a theoretically disciplined broadening of the analytical and comparative scope of contemporary democratic theory." (author's abstract)Dieser Text stellt im wesentlichen eine Revision der Demokratietheorie dar, die insofern als unzureichend betrachtet wird, als sie vielen der kürzlich demokratisierten Länder sowie auch einigen älteren, außerhalb des 'nord-westlichen Quadranten' der Welt bestehenden Demokratien nicht gerecht wird. Zunächst erfolgt eine kritische Überprüfung verschiedener Definitionen von Demokratie, insbesondere derjenigen, die sich - mit dem Anspruch, darin Schumpeter zu folgen - als 'minimalistisch' oder 'prozessualistisch' verstehen. Sodann wird auf dieser Grundlage eine realistische und begrenzte - aber nicht minimalistische - Definition eines demokratischen Regimes vorgeschlagen. Im nächsten Schritt wird die Bedeutung weiterer Einflußgrößen untersucht: politische und soziale Rechte, Wohlfahrt, der Staat vor allem in seiner rechtlichen Verfaßtheit sowie einige Kennzeichen des übergreifenden sozialen Zusammenhangs. Aus diesen Untersuchungen ergibt sich als wesentlicher Begründungsfaktor eine Handlungskonzeption, wie sie vor allem im Rechtssystem bestehender Demokratien zum Ausdruck kommt, wobei allerdings die Wirkungskraft dieses Systems im Spektrum der Fälle ganz unterschiedlich ausgeprägt ist. Der vorgestellte Ansatz betont rechtliche und historische Faktoren, geht aber in mehreren vergleichenden Exkursen auch wichtigen Unterschieden zwischen verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen nach. Die wesentlichen Schlußfolgerungen werden in einer Reihe von Thesen zusammengefaßt, die in der Hauptsache auf eine Einladung dazu hinauslaufen, den analytischen und komparativen Horizont zeitgenössischer Demokratietheorie auszuweiten. (HH

Democratic theory and comparative politics

The present text is, basically, a revision of democratic theory from the perspective of its inadequacies for including into its scope many of the recently democratized countries, as well as some older democracies located outside of the Northwestern quadrant of the world. After warning that it is a first step in a larger and more ambitious endeavor, the paper begins by critically examining various definitions of democracy, especially those that, claiming to follow Schumpeter, are deemed to be minimalist, or procesualist. On this basis, a realistic and restricted, but not minimalist, definition of a democratic regime is proposed. After this step, the connections of this topic with several others are explored, including political, social, and welfare rights; the state, especially in its legal dimension; and some characteristics of the overall social context. The main grounding factor that results from these explorations is the conception of agency, especially as it is expressed in the legal system of existing democracies - although the effectiveness of this system and of its underlying conceptions of agency vary quite widely across cases. The approach of the text emphasizes legal and historical factors, while also tracing, in several comparative excursi, some important differences among various kinds of cases. The main conclusions are stated in several propositions, the major thrust of which entails an invitation toward a theoretically disciplined broadening of the analytical and comparative scope of contemporary democratic theory. --

DEMOCRACIA, DESENVOLVIMENTO HUMANO E DIREITOS HUMANOS

.

Die Spannungen innerhalb des bürokratisch-autoritären Staates und der Frage der Demokratie

Wirklichkeit hat etwas zwingendes. Im Jahre 1974 habe ich einen Essay geschrieben, in dem ich mich auf die historische Erfahrung der bürokratisch-autoritären Staaten konzentrierte, wie sie damals existierten - und war überzeugt davon, daß die Rückkehr dieses Staatstypus in Argentinien unmittelbar bevorstand (O'Donnell 1975) In diesem Essay habe ich die Bedingungen erörtert, die zum Auftreten bürokratisch-autoritärer Staaten führen, aber meine Interessen hatten sich bereits in Richtung auf eine Untersuchung der spezifischen Dynamik verlagert, die von den inneren Spannungen der bürokratisch-autoritären Staaten ausgehen sowie auf die Auswirkungen dieses Staatstypus auf die Gesellschaft. Heute, d.h. Ende 1978, wo Brasilien vorsichtige, aber doch bedeutsame Fortschritte in Richtung auf eine politische Demokratie macht und wo andererseits Chile und Uruguay Herrschaftssystemen unterworfen sind, die anscheinend vor keiner ernsthaften Herausforderung mehr stehen, würde ich gerne die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen den internen Spannungen bürokratisch-autoritärer Staaten und ihren Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft erneutuntersuchen

Estado y alianzas en la Argentina 1956-1976

Área de Política y Gestión Públic

'Divided they stand, divided they fail': opposition politics in Morocco

The literature on democratization emphasises how authoritarian constraints usually lead genuine opposition parties and movements to form alliances in order to make demands for reform to the authoritarian regime. There is significant empirical evidence to support this theoretical point. While this trend is partly visible in the Middle East and North Africa, such coalitions are usually short-lived and limited to a single issue, never reaching the stage of formal and organic alliances. This article, using the case of Morocco, seeks to explain this puzzle by focusing on ideological and strategic differences that exist between the Islamist and the secular/liberal sectors of civil society, where significant opposition politics occurs. In addition, this article also aims to explain how pro-democracy strategies of the European Union further widen this divide, functioning as a key obstacle to democratic reforms

Explaining Myanmar's Regime Transition: The Periphery is Central

In 2010, Myanmar (Burma) held its first elections after 22 years of direct military rule. Few compelling explanations for this regime transition have emerged. This article critiques popular accounts and potential explanations generated by theories of authoritarian ‘regime breakdown’ and ‘regime maintenance’. It returns instead to the classical literature on military intervention and withdrawal. Military regimes, when not terminated by internal factionalism or external unrest, typically liberalise once they feel they have sufficiently addressed the crises that prompted their seizure of power. This was the case in Myanmar. The military intervened for fear that political unrest and ethnic-minority separatist insurgencies would destroy Myanmar’s always-fragile territorial integrity and sovereignty. Far from suddenly liberalising in 2010, the regime sought to create a ‘disciplined democracy’ to safeguard its preferred social and political order twice before, but was thwarted by societal opposition. Its success in 2010 stemmed from a strategy of coercive state-building and economic incorporation via ‘ceasefire capitalism’, which weakened and co-opted much of the opposition. Having altered the balance of forces in its favour, the regime felt sufficiently confident to impose its preferred settlement. However, the transition neither reflected total ‘victory’ for the military nor secured a genuine or lasting peace