Can democracy and peace go hand in hand? Sharansky, Halle, Pogrund, Eid
By: Limmud
Continued here:
Can democracy and peace go hand in hand? Sharansky, Halle, Pogrund, Eid - Video
By Daniel Treisman December 29
Joshua Tucker: One of our regular features here at The Monkey Cage is summaries from political scientists of recently published research. We have arranged for articles that are featured in this series to be ungated and made freely available to the public for a period of time following the post on The Monkey Cage. The current post is from UCLA political scientist Daniel Treismandescribing research from his article Income, Democracy, and Leader Turnover in the American Journal of Political Scienceand will be available forfree download for the next 30 days.
******
Does economic development cause countries to become more democratic? A vast literature says yes. Except for a few petrostates, mostly in the Persian Gulf, almost all the richest countries have responsive and accountable governments.
Yet whenever consensus on this seems about to emerge, objections surface. Influential dissenters point out exceptions and propose alternative theories. Perhaps other factors predispose certain countries both to advance economically and forge democratic institutions, without one causing the other. And what to make of the countries that grow rapidly for years without any hint of political liberalization? What about Spain under Generalisimo Franco, Indonesia under President Suharto, Russia under Vladimir Putin?
In a recent article I suggest a reason why this debate refuses to die. Economic development does lead to greater democracy but not in a smooth, incremental way. At certain times, a countrys income matters a lot for its political evolution; in other periods, incomes influence is muted. What opens such windows is leadership succession. As authoritarian states become richer, they do tend to become more democraticbut the impact of development is concentrated in the early years of new authoritarian leaders.
Take Spain. Under Franco, who seized power in 1939, the country metamorphosed from a rural backwater into the worlds eleventh largest industrial economy. By the time Franco died of old age in 1975, GDP per capita had quadrupled and the number of telephones had increased by more than 250 times. But the political regime remained a brutal and arbitrary despotism.
Yet, within a few years, Spain had shot to the top of the democracy ratings. Historians see a clear link between the countrys multifaceted economic and social modernization in the 1960s and its political transformation in the late 1970s. Economic development set the stage for democracy. But its impact was felt only after the generalisimo left the scene.
This graphwhich tells Spains storyshows why we may miss the impact of development if we look for only short-run relationships. It plots Spains Polity scorea rating which ranges from -10 (pure dictatorship) to +10 (pure democracy)along with the countrys GDP per capita (in 1990 dollars). Do the two appear to be related? Looking only at annual changes we would not see much link. In fact, the two lines only move in the same direction for a few years after 1975. Most of the time the Polity score remains flat, seemingly unresponsive to the countrys steadily rising income.
Figure: Daniel Treisman/The Monkey Cage
See the original post:
Monkey Cage: Economic development promotes democracy, but theres a catch
Health workers man a polling station in Liberia during a twice-delayed senate vote that was criticised for its potential to spread Ebola. Photograph: Abbas Dulleh/AP
More than 1.5 billion people voted around the world in 2014 in over 100 elections that endorsed the appeal of democracy as an idea, if not always as a system of government.
The polls ran from the vast and complex to tiny local affairs in which most voters knew each other, and which might have seemed familiar to the Greek city states that pioneered the idea of citizens choosing their own leaders more than two millennia ago.
On the Caribbean island of Montserrat, fewer than 3,000 people cast ballots for a new legislative assembly, but they represented almost three-quarters of eligible voters.
In India, by contrast, the presidential election was such a huge logistical challenge that it went on for weeks, allowing more than 500 million people to take part a full two-thirds of citizens with the right to vote.
The highest turnout, perhaps not surprisingly, was in authoritarian North Korea, where the government said that almost no one missed the chance to vote. The enthusiasm in a system of ruthless control probably owes more to fear than any wish to express an opinion.
Such is the grip of democracy that only a small handful of countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have no form of national-level vote. All others hold some kind of election, whether they be empty shows like Pyongyangs ballot, fraudulent or at least partially compromised.
Democracy has an appealing image of a system that gives people freedom and independence. So [countries such as] North Korea claim to be democratic republics to draw on this imagery, said Russell Dalton, professor of political science at the University of California.
Even if citizens see democracy as a positive feature, political elites in these nations do not want to yield power. So elections are used to give the appearance of democracy without the threatened loss of power to elites.
The relative success of countries that pioneered modern democracy have contributed to its popularity, said Professor Pippa Norris, at Harvard Universitys Kennedy school of government.
View original post here:
2014: a good year for democracy?
America (The Book): A Citizen #39;s Guide to Democracy Inaction - Jon Stewart, Rob Corddry (20
In 1999 Stewart began hosting The Daily Show on Comedy Central when Craig Kilborn left the show to replace Tom Snyder on The Late Late Show. The show, which . America (The Book): A Citizen #39;s...
By: Ramiro Howard
Read more:
America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction - Jon Stewart, Rob Corddry (20 - Video
Mark Taylor
NEW PRIME MINISTER: Fifteen members of parliament voted for 'Akilisi Pohiva against 11 for his opponent.
A veteran democracy campaigner who one of Tonga's kings once wanted hanged has today been elected the South Pacific kingdom's new prime minister.
Seventy-three-year-old 'Akilisi Pohiva defeated rival Samiu Vaipulu 15 votes to 11 to become the kingdom's first ever democratically elected commoner premier.
The one-time school teacher has spent most of his adult life fighting for change to Tonga's royal and noble controlled political, cultural and land tenure system.
Appropriately he is named after the New Zealand cruiser HMNZS Achilles which was visiting Nuku'alofa at the time of his birth.
Following general elections on November 27, Pohiva replaces Siale'ataongo Tu'ivakano, a noble, who now becomes the speaker.
Pohiva first came to prominence in the 1980s when, as a school teacher, he gave radio talks on democracy in a kingdom under the near absolute rule of then King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV.
He was fired from state radio, but won the first of many legal battles and set up a political party to campaign for the commoner seats of parliament which formed a minority in the Legislative Assembly.
Pohiva first got into parliament in 1987 and while he is seen as a driven character, he can also sound decidedly flaky with revolutionary slogans.
See the original post here:
Tonga democracy MP becomes prime minister