Democracy promotion

Last updated

Peacekeeping is conducive to democracy promotion and building in the developing world. Here, facilitator and former MICAH Police Commissioner Yves Bouchard shares mission experience with senior military and police officials in mission management to contribute to African Union peacekeeping missions. The Planification Avancee des Missions Integrees (APIM), or Advanced Mission Planning Course, was held by the Pearson Centre at Bamako's Ecole de maintien de la paix. Briefing at EMP.JPG
Peacekeeping is conducive to democracy promotion and building in the developing world. Here, facilitator and former MICAH Police Commissioner Yves Bouchard shares mission experience with senior military and police officials in mission management to contribute to African Union peacekeeping missions. The Planification Avancée des Missions Intégrées (APIM), or Advanced Mission Planning Course, was held by the Pearson Centre at Bamako's Ecole de maintien de la paix.

Democracy promotion, also referred to as democracy building, can be domestic policy to increase the quality of already existing democracy or a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a system of government. Among the reasons for supporting democracy include the belief that countries with a democratic system of governance are less likely to go to war, are likely to be economically better off and socially more harmonious. [1] In democracy building, the process includes the building and strengthening of democracy, in particular the consolidation of democratic institutions, including courts of law, police forces, and constitutions. [2] Some critics have argued that the United States has used democracy promotion to justify military intervention abroad. [3] [4]

Contents

Much experience was gained after the Revolutions of 1989 resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain and a wave of democratic transitions in former Communist states, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. According to Freedom House, the number of democracies increased from 41 of 150 existing states in 1974 to 123 of 192 states in 2006. [5] The pace of transition slowed considerably since the beginning of the twenty-first century, which encouraged discussion of whether democracy was under threat. [6] In the early twenty-first century, a democratic deficit was noticed in countries where democratic systems already existed, including Britain, the US and the European Union. [7] In the financial sense, democracy promotion grew from 2% of aid in 1990 to nearly 20% in 2005. [8]

An open question for democracy promotion around the world, both in countries where it is already at the core of the system of governance and in those where it is not, is defining the terminology of promoting, supporting or assisting democracy in the post-Cold War situation. [9]

Definitions

The precise definition of democracy promotion has been debated for more than twenty-five years. The multiplicity of terms used is a manifestation of the plurality of opinions and approaches by international actors, be they governments, NGOs or other third parties. For example, the term 'promotion' itself can be seen by some as too intrusive, [10] or implying outside interference, whilst 'support' can be seen by some as more benign but, by others, as insufficiently assertive. [11] In the early twenty-first century, the differences tended to divide into two main camps: those who see it as a political process versus those who see it as a developmental process (see international relations and development aid for context). [12]

This basic division between the political and developmental approaches has existed inchoately in the field of democracy support for many years. It has come into sharper relief during this decade, as democracy-aid providers face a world increasingly populated by countries not conforming to clear or coherent political transitional paths. [...] Some adherents of the developmental approach criticize the political approach as too easily turning confrontational vis-à-vis "host" governments and producing unhelpful counterreactions. Some adherents of the political approach, meanwhile, fault the developmental approach for being too vague and unassertive in a world where many leaders have learned to play a reform game with the international community, absorbing significant amounts of external political aid while avoiding genuine democratization.

Thomas Carothers, 2009, in Journal of Democracy [12]

At least part of the problem lies in the absence of a consensus on what democracy constitutes. W. B. Gallie argued that it is impossible to find a consensus definition, and instead included democracy in a list of 'essentially contested concepts'. [13] [14] To date, the disagreement over definitions has seen some actors focus on supporting technical systems of democratic governance (elections, government structures and the like), while others take the bottom-up approach of promoting citizen participation and building strong civil and political society to prepare the ground on which systems of government can then be planted.

The European Partnership for Democracy defines 'democracy support' as the political or financial "efforts to reinforce or create democratic development or to halt autocratisation", while 'democracy assistance' refers to financial flows "in the spirit of ‘international assistance". EPD further acknowledges that 'democracy promotion' is the term widespreadly used by academics but has a more active and often coercive connotation compared to ‘democracy support’. Support is something given to existing internal efforts for democratisation while promotion does not require any such internal (national) desire". [15]

Another definition of democracy support can be drawn from the OECD Development Assistance Committee's aid flow database. The classification makes the distinction between different types of aid flows relevant for democracy assistance, such as democratic participation and civil society, elections, legislatures and political parties, media and free flow of information, human rights, women's rights organisations and movement and government, decentralisation and support to subnational government institutions, and anti-corruption organisations and institutions. [16]

The types and objectives of democracy assistance aid delivered by international donors depend on the history of their own country with democracy, and may explain the diversity of democracy promotion contexts. If historically Western countries championed democracy promotion worldwide, new non-Western actors have emerged in the last decades with particular goals and geographical reaches, participating in the construction of a broad definition of democracy promotion. [17]

Foreign policy types

External democracy promotion has two main patterns that depend on the type of democratization a state is dealing with: external intervention and as a solution to civil war, or supporting an internal push for reform. Democracy promotion advocates are divided on which pattern tends to be most successful for the resources that democracy promotion programs invest; they are similarly divided on which components and factors of the democratization process are most important to the success of democratic consolidation.

Post-civil war democratization

Civil wars cause a number of problems for democratization. Laura Armey and Robert McNab found that the longer a civil war lasts, and the more casualties it produces, the more hostile the warring factions become to each other; this hostility in turn makes stabilization along terms of peaceful competition, required in a democratic regime, more difficult. Problematically for democracy promotion, the same study found that quick, decisive victories for one faction—even an ostensibly pro-democratic rebellion—similarly discourage peaceful, electoral competition for control of a government after the conflict is over. [18] Leonard Wantchekon has suggested that one of the most reliable forces of democratization is a stalemated civil war, in which the original motivation for the conflict becomes irrelevant as the costs mount; this impels the factions to turn to a combination of internal and external arbitrators to forge a power-sharing agreement: elections and outside, neutral institutions to guarantee that every faction participates in the new democracy fairly. [19]

External intervention

External interventions see different levels of democratization success depending on the type of intervener, type of intervention, and level of elite cooperation prior to the intervention. The level of neutrality and geopolitical disinterest the intervener possesses is important, as is the severity of the intervention's infringement on sovereignty. The differences can be highlighted with several examples: a neutral, mostly unobtrusive monitor missions like UN election observers in Nicaragua in 1989; the multilateral NATO IFOR mission in Yugoslavia to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1031 in 1995; the unilateral destabilizing intervention represented by the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the stabilizing intervention represented by United States invasion of Panama. [20] [21] [22] All these missions aimed on some level to promote democracy, with varying degrees of success. Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis have found that the peacekeeping missions most successful at producing fledgling democracies have strong mandates backing them up, but tend not to revolve around military enforcement. Successful democratizing interventions consist of monitoring factions' adherence to their negotiated settlement, while the most successful ones include extensive state-building (such as improving government efficiency and professionalism, or classical infrastructure assistance) [23] or prior experience with democracy. [20]

Problems with external intervention

Interventions that fail to expend resources on state-building can sometimes be counter-productive to democracy promotion because, as McBride, Milante, and Skaperdas have proposed, a negotiated settlement to a civil war is based on individual factions' faith in the state's unbiased distribution of the benefits of stability; an external intervention shakes that faith by implying that such faith was misplaced to begin with. [24] An additional problem raised by Marina Ottaway is that interventions too often rush to implement formal democratic institutions, such as elections, without allowing time for competing elites to separate responsibly; because of the short timeframe, they either unite into a new authoritarian arrangement or rely on overly divisive party platforms, such as identity, which precludes “permanent fragmentation” of the elite within a cooperative regime framework. [25] A final concern raised with external interventions, particularly unilateral or narrowly multilateral ones, is the perception or actualization of imperialism or neo-imperialism in the name of human rights or democracy by an interested party, which, she theorizes, spawns counter-productive nationalist backlash; however, even neutral monitors must be careful that their reports do not invite a unilateral intervention, as the Council of Freely-Elected Heads of Government's 1989 report on Panamanian election fraud did for the United States. [26]

Gradual reformism and the four-player game

Another school of thought on how democratization most successfully occurs involves an authoritarian regime transitioning to a democratic one as a result of gradual reforms over time. The basic mechanism for this is a four-player game theoretical set-up in which (1) moderate regime and (2) moderate opposition figures form a pro-democratic reform coalition to sideline (3) core regime members and (4) opposition calling for radical pro-democratic changes, with the aim of making the state more democratic while preserving its stability. [27] Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz argue that this model requires both a highly institutionalized regime and public sphere. The regime must not be sultanistic (based entirely around one central ruler's desires) in order that different members retain some degree of autonomy and have different interests; meanwhile, in the public sphere, there must be a strong civil society that can both maintain pressure on the authoritarian regime while also providing support for the reform pact and the moderates who formulated it. [28] According to Ray Salvatore Jennings, during the second half of the twentieth century, the success of democratic transitions depended substantially on the ability of civil society organizations (CSOs) to disseminate dissident information to counter authoritarian regimes' narratives, as well as their mobilizing high voter turnout and monitoring the first elections to prevent interference by hardliner members of the regime. [29] Further, many scholars partial to the gradual reformism perspective on democratization agree with Francis Fukuyama, who asserts that the role of CSOs in directing the part of individuals' lives not under the liberal democratic state's control makes CSOs critical to sustaining the social capital and self-advocacy important for liberal democracy. [30]

Conflict over support for internal reform

Even beyond the question of what and whether external intervention is an effective democracy support strategy, a number of issues continue to divide the proponents of a democracy support-based international policy. Carles Boix and Susan Stokes advocate economic development aid, contending that the more advanced an economy, the less willing factions will be to break the peace; others, however, contend that this strategy is only useful at defending democratic consolidation, and not at encouraging democratization of regimes where one faction already dominates. [31] Still others fall in Freytag and Heckelman's camp, advocating the long-game, positing that although USAID programs have so far had little net effect on democratization, they have demonstrably improved basic democratic features, including civil society and the electoral process, in countries receiving aid. [32]

Not all CSOs will be helpful in promoting democracy—if the organization is too large to inspire its members, or its constituents' identity is too narrowly defined, the organization will fail to support four-player democratic transition pacts, and may even encourage divisiveness and civil war. [33] There is also some concern that the international community may be propping up NGOs to the point that they themselves become an unrepresentative elite. [34]

Domestic policy types

Domestic policies can improve the quality of democracies, and reduce the chance of democratic backsliding. Democracy promotion measures include voting advice applications, [35] participatory democracy, [36] increasing youth suffrage, increasing civic education, [37] and electoral reforms such as reducing barriers to entry to candidacy and politics, [38] and reducing the concentration of political power in the hands of one individual. [39]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Indonesia</span> Political system of Indonesia

The politics of Indonesia take place in the framework of a presidential representative democratic republic whereby the President of Indonesia is both head of state and head of government and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the bicameral People's Consultative Assembly. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

Regime change is the partly forcible or coercive replacement of one government regime with another. Regime change may replace all or part of the state's most critical leadership system, administrative apparatus, or bureaucracy. Regime change may occur through domestic processes, such as revolution, coup, or reconstruction of government following state failure or civil war. It can also be imposed on a country by foreign actors through invasion, overt or covert interventions, or coercive diplomacy. Regime change may entail the construction of new institutions, the restoration of old institutions, and the promotion of new ideologies.

In political science, a political system means the type of political organization that can be recognized, observed or otherwise declared by a state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratization</span> Society becoming more democratic

Democratization, or democratisation, is the democratic transition to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures". There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa</span> Overview of the role and situation of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa

The state of Democracy in Middle East and North Africa can be comparatively assessed according to various definitions of democracy. According to The Economist Group's Democracy Index 2023 study, Israel is the only democratic country in the region, qualified as a "flawed democracy". According to the V-Dem Democracy indices, the Middle Eastern and North African countries with the highest scores in 2023 are Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.

Interventionism is a political practice of intervention, particularly to the practice of governments to interfere in political affairs of other countries, staging military or trade interventions. Economic interventionism is a different practice of intervention, one of economic policy at home.

In political science and in international and comparative law and economics, transitology is the study of the process of change from one political regime to another, mainly from authoritarian regimes to democratic ones rooted in conflicting and consensual varieties of economic liberalism.

Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures, in a way that it becomes unlikely to revert to authoritarianism without an external shock, and is regarded as the only available system of government within a country. A country can be described as consolidated when the current democratic system becomes “the only game in town”, meaning no one in the country is trying to act outside of the set institutions. This is the case when no significant political group seriously attempts to overthrow the democratic regime, the democratic system is regarded as the most appropriate way to govern by the vast majority of the public, and all political actors are accustomed to the fact that conflicts are resolved through established political and constitutional rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic transition</span> Specific phase in a political system

A democratic transition describes a phase in a countries political system as a result of an ongoing change from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one The process is known as democratisation, political changes moving in a democratic direction. Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms. Although transitional regimes experience more civil unrest, they may be considered stable in a transitional phase for decades at a time. Since the end of the Cold War transitional regimes have become the most common form of government. Scholarly analysis of the decorative nature of democratic institutions concludes that the opposite democratic backsliding (autocratization), a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of modern hybrid regimes.

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy, civil liberties, and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coup d'état</span> Deposition of a government

A coup d'état, or simply a coup, is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership. A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy promotion by the United States</span> Overview of democracy promotion by the United States of America

Democracy promotion by the United States aims to encourage governmental and non-governmental actors to pursue political reforms that will lead ultimately to democratic governance.

Thomas Carothers is an American lawyer and expert on international democracy support, democratization, and U.S. foreign policy. He is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he founded and currently co-directs the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program. He has also taught at several universities in the United States and Europe, including Central European University, the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Nuffield College, Oxford.

Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas. Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition. Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.

A hybrid regime is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states. Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Embedded democracy</span>

Embedded democracy is a form of government in which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes. The term "embedded democracy" was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel, Hans-Jürgen Puhle, and Aurel Croissant, who identified "five interdependent partial regimes" necessary for an embedded democracy: electoral regime, political participation, civil rights, horizontal accountability, and the power of the elected representatives to govern. The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies. Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic intervention</span>

A democratic intervention is a military intervention by external forces with the aim of assisting democratization of the country where the intervention takes place. Examples include intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democratic intervention has occurred throughout the mid-twentieth century, as evidenced in Japan and Germany after World War II, where democracies were imposed by military intervention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic backsliding</span> A country becoming less democratic

Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.

The territorial peace theory finds that the stability of a country's borders has a large influence on the political climate of the country. Peace and stable borders foster a democratic and tolerant climate, while territorial conflicts with neighbor countries have far-reaching consequences for both individual-level attitudes, government policies, conflict escalation, arms races, and war.

References

  1. ↑ see Peter Burnell, From Evaluating Democracy Assistance to Appraising Democracy Promotion, Political Studies Association, Political Studies 2008 VOL 56
  2. ↑ "Democracy Building and Conflict Management: Overview". International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). n.d. Archived from the original on February 9, 2006. Retrieved January 18, 2006.
  3. ↑ Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest . 2. Archived from the original on July 5, 2008. Also see this page.
  4. ↑ Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391–402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. S2CID   51897214.
  5. ↑ Lise Rakner, Alina Rocha Menocal and Verena Fritz (2008) Assessing international democracy assistance: Key lessons and challenges Archived March 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine London: Overseas Development Institute
  6. ↑ Azar Gat, The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers, in Foreign Affairs, July–August 2007,
  7. ↑ Saskia Sassen, Globalisation, the State and Democratic Deficit, Open Democracy, 18 July 2007, Archived November 13, 2009, at the Wayback Machine ; Patrice de Beer, France and Europe: the Democratic Deficit Exposed, Open Democracy, 4 June 2006, Archived August 31, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ Matanock, Aila M. (2020). "How International Actors Help Enforce Domestic Deals". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 357–383. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033504 . ISSN   1094-2939.
  9. ↑ Christopher Hobson & Milja Kurki, Democracy and democracy-support: a new era, Open Democracy, 20 March 2009,
  10. ↑ https://ca.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-promotions
  11. ↑ https://brainly.in/question/12480
  12. 1 2 Carothers, Thomas (2009). "Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental?" (PDF). Journal of Democracy . 20 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0047. ISSN   1086-3214. S2CID   62898427. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 1, 2021. Retrieved December 1, 2021.
  13. ↑ Gallie (1956a), passim. Kekes (1977, p.71)
  14. ↑ https://philpapers.org/archive/RUBWGA.pdf
  15. ↑ "Louder than words ? Connecting the dots of European democracy support" (PDF). European Partnership for Democracy. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  16. ↑ "DAC and CRS code lists". OECD. OECD. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  17. ↑ Carothers, Thomas. "Non-Western Roots of International Democracy Support". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  18. ↑ Armey, Laura E.; McNab, Robert M. (January 1, 2015). "Democratization and Civil War" (PDF). Applied Economics. 47 (18): 1863–1882. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.1000529. ISSN   1466-4283. S2CID   218640409.
  19. ↑ Leonard, Wantchekon (February 1, 2004). "The Paradox of Democracy: A Theoretical Investigation". American Political Science Review. 98 (1): 17–33. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.110.2304 . doi:10.1017/S0003055404000978. ISSN   1537-5943. S2CID   18062632.
  20. 1 2 Loxton, James. "The Puzzle of Panamanian Exceptionalism." Journal of Democracy 33.1 (2022): 85-99.
  21. ↑ Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
  22. ↑ Saller, Paige. "The Panamanian Puzzle Successful Democratization and Foreign-Imposed Regime Change." The Commons: Puget Sound Journal of Politics 4.1 (2023): 1.
  23. ↑ Doyle, Michael; Sambanis, Nicholas (December 1, 2000). "International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis". The American Political Science Review. 94 (4): 779–801. doi:10.2307/2586208. JSTOR   2586208. S2CID   15961507.
  24. ↑ McBride, Michael; Milante, Gary; Skaperdas, Stergios (June 1, 2011). "Peace and war with endogenous state capacity" (PDF). The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 55 (3): 446–468. doi:10.1177/0022002711400862. S2CID   1316278.
  25. ↑ Ottaway, Marina (1995). "Democratization in Collapsed States". In Zartman, I. William (ed.). Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers. ISBN   978-1555875602.
  26. ↑ Chand, Vikram (January 1, 1997). "Democratisation from the outside in: Ngo and international efforts to promote open elections". Third World Quarterly. 18 (3): 543–562. doi:10.1080/01436599714867. ISSN   1360-2241.
  27. ↑ Mainwaring, Scott (1992). "The Games of Transition". Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN   978-0268012106.
  28. ↑ Linz, Juan J.; Stepan, Alfred (August 8, 1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe . JHU Press. ISBN   9780801851582.
  29. ↑ Jennings, Ray Salvatore (January 1, 2012). "Democratic breakthroughs: the ingredients of successful revolts". Peaceworks. US Institute for Peace.
  30. ↑ Fukuyama, Francis (January 1, 2001). "Social capital, civil society and development". Third World Quarterly. 22 (1): 7–20. doi:10.1080/713701144. S2CID   55508252.
  31. ↑ Boix, Carles; Stokes, Susan Carol (January 1, 2003). "Endogenous Democratization". World Politics. 55 (4): 517–549. doi:10.1353/wp.2003.0019. ISSN   1086-3338. S2CID   18745191.
  32. ↑ Freytag, Andreas (December 1, 2012). "Has Assistance from USAID been Successful for Democratization? Evidence from the Transition Economies of Eastern Europe and Eurasia". Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 168 (4): 636. doi:10.1628/093245612804469809.
  33. ↑ Orjuela, Camilla (July 1, 2005). "Civil Society in Civil War: The Case of Sri Lanka". Civil Wars. 7 (2): 120–137. doi:10.1080/13698280500422884. S2CID   143546484.
  34. ↑ Bermeo, Nancy (April 1, 2003). "What the democratization literature says--or doesn't say--about postwar democratization". Global Governance. 9 (2): 159–177. doi:10.1163/19426720-00902006.
  35. ↑ Germann, Micha; Gemenis, Kostas (2019). "Getting Out the Vote with Voting Advice Applications". Political Communication. 36: 149–170. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237. S2CID   149640396.
  36. ↑ "Book Review: Against Elections: The Case for Democracy by David Van Reybrouck". October 20, 2016. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
  37. ↑ Wong, Alia (October 5, 2018). "Civics Education Helps Create Young Voters and Activists". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 17, 2020.
  38. ↑ Tullock, Gordon (1965). "Entry Barriers in Politics". The American Economic Review. 55 (1/2): 458–466. JSTOR   1816288.
  39. ↑ Hawkins, Kirk Andrew; Carlin, Ryan E.; Littvay, Levente; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal (eds.). The ideational approach to populism: concept, theory, and analysis. p. 281. ISBN   978-1-315-19692-3. OCLC   1053623603.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.