Suchergebnisse

The connection between a democratic government's societal performance & its structure is examined. After discussing multiple definitions of government, it is contended that government should be understood as the mechanisms that facilitate collective decisions made through public action for the benefit of a society. It is argued that government is a central component of society & that it largely determines the nature of public governance. The institutions, leadership styles, & standards embodied within presidential, parliamentary, & dual power government systems are then studied with the intent of determining how these different systems can ensure adequate government performance. An analysis of the state format of various liberal democracies (N = 52) is performed to demonstrate how structural variables affect democratic governance. The findings revealed that structural deficiencies, not various economic or social problems, are primarily responsible for a democratic government's inability to resolve such difficulties. Additional results indicating how levels of democratic governance & government organization influence policy performance are reported; moreover, findings concerning how democratic institutions affect levels of "democraticness" & citizens' quality of life are presented. The study's implications for future research are considered. 10 Tables, 1 Appendix. J. W. Parker

In this era of globalization and the trend toward a free market economy, states face increasing challenges in their effort to deliver and maintain public services and safeguard a representative and responsible form of democratic government. In the face of growing citizen disenchantment toward traditional structures for political representation and accountability, western democracies have increasingly begun to turn to the 'new governance' model, a partnership-oriented policy strategy in which the state defines policy objectives but gives considerable leeway to key external actors in pursuing those objectives. While meant to enhance government performance, this model doesn't offer a satisfactory alternative to traditional forms of political representation and accountability. Democracies are faced with a dilemma: How to ensure government performance and efficacy without sacrificing political representation and accountability to the electorate? In this article, a comparative study is proposed on how policy makers and civil servants view this conflict of goals and what measures have been taken to resolve it. Toward this end, governance reform will be analyzed and compared in Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, and Britain. Adapted from the source document.

The concept of "time & space compression," as formulated by a number of prominent social theorists, has far-reaching consequences for democratic theory. The time & space horizons of human activity are undergoing dramatic changes, chiefly because the high-speed character of crucial forms of social & economic activity tends to "annihilate" distance. Simultaneity & instantaneousness increasingly become constitutive features of the human condition. By examining traditional assumptions about time & space within liberal democratic political theory, we can begin to see how time & space compression undermines conventional ideas about legislative-executive relations, majority rule, constitutionalism, & the rule of law. However, there may be ways by which defenders of liberal democracy can overcome the dilemmas generated by time & space compression. Adapted from the source document.

This paper reviews & criticizes the argument that citizens should take active responsibility for & be willing to sacrifice their life to establish & protect a liberal democratic social order. The argument is faulted for assuming that the key for good democracy is to get people to accept their responsibilities, in particular, their responsibility to be citizen soldiers. It is at least as important to ask how the service of citizen soldiers is connected with the constitution of democratic society. The argument is also faulted for ignoring that democratic societies vary in form & virtue, & that it is necessary to explain when citizen soldiers will promote the establishment of one kind of democracy or another. To correct these deficiencies, a theory is offered that ties the service of citizen soldiers during war to the quality of democratic society through the allocation & routinization of charisma. The theory is illustrated by a comparative historical analysis of American experience during its Revolutionary & Civil Wars. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

An introductory chapter looks at how emerging theories of minority rights & multiculturalism affect democratic citizenship, as well as how emerging theories of citizenship & civic virtue affect the rights/status of ethnocultural minorities. The complexity of the relationship between minority rights & citizenship is emphasized. The literature on ethnic-conflict management is drawn upon to explore policy options available to states with inter-ethnic tensions. Different kinds of national, immigrant, religious & sui generic minority groups are examined, along with the varied ways groups pursue respect for their cultural or religious distinctiveness within liberal democracies. Key concerns of minority groups are described as loss of equal citizenship status, identity fragmentation, erosion of civic virtue/participation, & a weakening of the bonds of social cohesion/political unity. The chapters in this volume shed light on current debates by drawing upon varied academic disciplines & intellectual traditions to examine a broad range of groups, rights, & citizenship ideals. J. Lindroth

The statistical observation that war between democratic states is exceptionally rare and the seemingly contradictory finding that democracies nevertheless do go to war have posedan intriguing puzzle for the field of international politics. The two explanations that have gained the greatest currency, the normative and structural, have commanded center stage for nearly a decade. Recently, however, these explanations have come under attack. Using the propositional calculus, this study provides a logical construction of both arguments that (1)explains the empirical results of why two democracies do not goto war whereas all other dyads do go to war, (2) compares the normative and structural theories, and (3) facilitates an assessment of the critiques leveled at both theories.

This essay aims to reveal the assumptions underlying presumptions of factional differences relating to contemporary democracy. The author gives evidence to support means of integrating polarized ideas of liberalism. There is exploration of the complexities & subtleties of groups she feels have been sketched too sharply. It is suggested that the focus on groups' differences rather than similarities has been exaggerated. The significance & impact of ethnic & racial identities on modern democratic politics is cited. The role of ethnicity in liberal democracy is explored via documentation of post-1960s US political events. The impacts of "neutral" & "exceptional status" liberals in framing issues of race & ethnicity are outlined, as is debate over the boundaries between public & private identities. Arguments by Kymlicka, Taylor, & Appiah are noted. There is discussion of reassessing identity issues & of liberal democrats' reactions to ethnic identities. M. C. Leary

Multiple theories posit the existence of a dyadic democratic peace. The authors extend the logic of three theories of the democratic peace — informational, normative, and preferences — and find that they make different predictions with respect to the onset and escalation of disputes across the range of similar regime dyads. First, regarding dispute onset, the preferences argument, but not the normative and informational arguments, expects autocratic dyads of similar type to have less conflict onset than mixed dyads. Second, the normative argument expects democratic, but not non-democratic, dyads to be less likely to escalate their disputes, while the informational argument expects democracy to have little impact, after conflict onset has been taken into account. The preferences argument expects all dyads of similar regime type to be less likely to escalate their disputes. Critical tests of these expectations are conducted by estimating a censored choice model of conflict onset and escalation, using multiple measures of interstate conflict. The authors find little support for a broader regime-similarity peace, and their findings on democratic dispute escalation favor the informational argument over the normative argument.

Themes & contradictions in Paz's works are discussed, including his praises for liberal democracy (eg, as in the US), his critique of totalitarian & socialist regimes (eg, as in the USSR), & his romanticism. In Paz's works, romanticism moderates liberalism; Paz preserves romantic principles, adopting liberalism only where it does not distort the principles. Contradictions between the modern & antimodern in his works & his approach to history are also addressed. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

The effects that democratic institutions have upon public policy are studied. After describing the intrinsic & extrinsic importance of democratic institutions, differences between institutions & political actors are noted to determine whether institutions actually make a difference in policy making. Alexis de Tocqueville's (1990 [1840]) distinction between democracies & nondemocracies is analyzed, illustrating that democratic institutions are frequently associated with but not necessarily the principal cause of policy outcomes. Arend Lijphart's (1984, 1999) understandings of Westminster & Consensus democratic systems are then reviewed to determine the degree of institutional coherence in both democratic forms & to identify whether these systems are more akin to parliamentarist or presidentialist governments. The influence that three institutional variables -- democratic stability, public sector size, & degree of state centralization -- have upon policy outcomes is also considered. Rather than suggest that one form of democracy is superior to the others, it is shown that continental European democracies generally have small income gaps & larger public sectors than those in other Western nations. It is concluded that the composition of institutions may be a more important factor than form of democracy in determining how institutions affect public policy. 6 Tables, 1 Figure, 2 Appendixes. J. W. Parker