| 1. |
- Boese, Vanessa Alexandra, et al.
(author)
-
Waves of autocratization and democratization: a rejoinder
- 2021
-
In: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 28:6, s. 1202-1210
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This is a response to Luca Tomini's "Don't think of a wave!" and Svend-Erik Skaaning's "Waves of autocratization and democratization". With this rejoinder we make three arguments: First, the question how global waves shape autocratization processes and regime transformations is now more urgent than ever. Since 1994, civil liberties and political rights of one third of the global population have been substantially and increasingly reduced due to autocratization. Second, waves of any concept can only be studied meaningfully if the underlying concepts as well as the waves are clearly defined. We argue that the conceptualization of episodes of regime transformations (ERT) in the ERT dataset provides exactly such a clear state-of-the-art empirical mapping of processes of democratization and autocratization at the national level. In addition, we highlight how our conceptualization of waves builds upon Huntington, 1993. It even improves upon it by allowing for overlap and modelling it closer to its real world counterpart. Third, we view the present debate as a prime example of fruitful scholastic argument. Ultimately, this is what will generate a better understanding of global trends of democratization and autocratization.
|
|
| 2. |
- Düpont, Nils, et al.
(author)
-
A global perspective on party organizations. Validating the Varieties of Party Identity and Organization Dataset (V-Party)
- 2022
-
In: Electoral Studies. - : Elsevier BV. - 0261-3794. ; 75
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Party organization is a central concept in comparative politics. Yet, data on party organizational features is sparse, scattered and available for a limited set of countries and parties. To advance global research on party organizations, we present the Varieties of Party Identity and Organization Dataset (V-Party) – the most comprehensive dataset to date, including a wide range of information about organizational features and party stances of more than 1900 parties in 168 countries between 1970 and 2019. In this paper, we focus particular attention on new measures that relate to parties' territorial reach, ties to social organizations, candidate nomination procedures, personalization, and internal cohesion. We validate these new measures using Adcock and Collier's (2001) three-pronged validation approach, looking at content, criterion and construct validity, to showcase and emphasize the potential of V-Party.
|
|
| 3. |
- Grahn, Sandra, et al.
(author)
-
Civil Society and Post-Independence Democracy Levels
- 2020
-
In: SSRN Electronic Journal. - Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet. - 1556-5068.
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The role of civil society for the consolidation of democracy is contested. Some argue that Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are important “schools of democracy” and may foster democratic consolidation. Others emphasize that anti-democratic CSOs may undermine democracy. This debate is particularly relevant in the context of newly independent states. At this critical juncture, both democratic and authoritarian regime trajectories seem possible. Societal preconditions – such as the state of civil society – are highly relevant for the way forward. To what extent does the strength and the nature of civil society organizations (CSOs) prior to independence have an impact on the consolidation of democracy? We argue that the existence of democratic CSOs prior to democratic transition strengthen post-independence democracy whereas non-democratic CSOs have a detrimental effect. For the first time, this argument is empirically tested, using data from the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem) on 92 cases of independence since 1905. The results of this study show that the presence of democratic CSOs prior to independence is important for the consolidation of democracy, the presence of non-democratic CSOs before independence is negatively correlated to democracy levels of the new state following independence.
|
|
| 4. |
- Grahn, Sandra, et al.
(author)
-
Good seed makes a good crop? The relationship between civil society and post-independence democracy levels
- 2021
-
In: Journal of Civil Society. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1744-8689 .- 1744-8697. ; 17:3-4, s. 297-322
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The impact of civil society on democracy is contested. Some argue that Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are important 'schools of democracy' and may foster democratic consolidation. Others emphasize that antidemocratic CSOs may undermine democracy. This debate is particularly relevant in the context of newly independent states. At that critical juncture, both democratic and authoritarian regime trajectories are possible. Societal preconditions - such as the state of civil society - can therefore be particularly relevant for the way forward. To what extent does the nature of CSOs prior to independence has an impact on the subsequent level of democracy? We argue that the existence of democratic CSOs prior to independence strengthens post-independence democracy whereas non-democratic CSOs have a detrimental effect. For the first time, this argument is empirically tested, using Varieties of Democracy (VDem) data on 91 cases of independence since 1905. The empirical results demonstrate that the presence of democratic CSOs prior to independence is positively correlated, whereas non-democratic CSOs are negatively correlated to democracy levels following independence.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hellmeier, Sebastian, 1989, et al.
(author)
-
State of the world 2020: autocratization turns viral
- 2021
-
In: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 28:6, s. 1053-1074
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article analyses the state of democracy in 2020. The world is still more democratic than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but a trend of autocratization is ongoing and affecting 25 countries in 2020, home to 34% of the world's population. At the same time, the number of democratizing countries has dwindled by nearly half, reducing to 16 countries, home to a mere 4% of the global population. Freedom of expression, deliberation, rule of law and elections show the most substantial net declines in the last decade. A major change is that India, formerly the world's largest democracy, turned into an electoral autocracy. The V-Dem data suggests that direct effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on levels of liberal democracy were limited in 2020. Still, the longer-term consequences may be worse and must be monitored closely. Due to the pandemic and state restrictions on the freedom of assembly, mass mobilization declined to its lowest level in over a decade, yet the decline in pro-democracy protests in 2020 may well prove to be short-lived once the pandemic subdues.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kerr, Nicholas, et al.
(author)
-
Public trust in manipulated elections: The role of election administration and media freedom
- 2017
-
In: Electoral Studies. - : Elsevier BV. - 0261-3794. ; 50, s. 50-67
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- © 2017 Elsevier Ltd As multiparty elections have become a global norm, scholars and policy experts regard public trust in elections as vital for regime legitimacy. However, very few cross-national studies have examined the consequences of electoral manipulation, including the manipulation of election administration and the media, on citizens' trust in elections. This paper addresses this gap by exploring how autonomy of election management bodies (EMBs) and media freedom individually and conjointly shape citizens’ trust in elections. Citizens are more likely to express confidence in elections when EMBs display de-facto autonomy, and less likely to do so when mass media disseminate information independent of government control. Additionally, we suggest that EMB autonomy may not have a positive effect on public trust in elections if media freedom is low. Empirical findings based on recent survey data on public trust in 47 elections and expert data on de-facto EMB autonomy and media freedom support our hypotheses.
|
|
| 7. |
- Laebens, Melis G., et al.
(author)
-
What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability
- 2021
-
In: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 28:5, s. 908-928
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Worldwide, democratic erosion is on the rise, with incumbents slowly undermining the pillars of democratic competition such as political freedoms, clean elections, and a free press. While such gradual erosion frequently culminates in democratic breakdown, this is not always the case. How can accountability mechanisms contribute to halting democratic erosion before breakdown, even if they could not prevent the onset of erosion? To study this question, we use the V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index to systematically identify three recent cases–Benin (2007–2012), Ecuador (2008–2010), and South Korea (2008–2016)–where substantial democratic erosion happened but democracy did not break down. Studying these cases in depth we find that accountability mechanism–parliamentary and judicial oversight (horizontal accountability), pressures from civil society and the media (diagonal accountability), or electoral competition between parties and within parties (vertical accountability)–played a part in halting democratic erosion in all of them. They effectively halted erosion when institutional constraints–such as presidential term limits or judicial independence–and contextual factors–in particular economic downturns and public outrage about corruption scandals–worked together to create simultaneous pressures on the incumbents from civil society and from vertical or horizontal accountability actors.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lindberg, Staffan I, 1969, et al.
(author)
-
Successful and Failed Episodes of Democratization: Conceptualization, Identification, and Description
- 2018
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- What explains successful democratization? Answering this requires that researchers identify not only countries that successfully transitioned to democracy, but also those that began to liberalize—that initiated institutional reforms that move it towards democracy—but failed to transition. In this paper, we propose a solution that allows researchers more fully to capture the liberalization period and then classify these episodic events according to their outcome: successful, failed, or censored episodes of democratization. We identify the appropriate procedures and data necessary for operationalization of such episodes and present the first ever dataset of the full universe of democratization episodes 1900-2017, compare them to existing measures and assess construct validity. We also demonstrate the value of this approach showing how we can substantially improve upon what we know about democratization, including their relationship to development, state capacity, underlying temporal features, and the relationship between patterns of liberalization and whether a country successfully transitions to democracy.
|
|
| 9. |
- Lührmann, Anna, 1983, et al.
(author)
-
A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?
- 2019
-
In: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 26:7, s. 1095-1113
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- © 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Less than 30 years after Fukuyama and others declared liberal democracy’s eternal dominance, a third wave of autocratization is manifest. Gradual declines of democratic regime attributes characterize contemporary autocratization. Yet, we lack the appropriate conceptual and empirical tools to diagnose and compare such elusive processes. Addressing that gap, this article provides the first comprehensive empirical overview of all autocratization episodes from 1900 to today based on data from the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem). We demonstrate that a third wave of autocratization is indeed unfolding. It mainly affects democracies with gradual setbacks under a legal façade. While this is a cause for concern, the historical perspective presented in this article shows that panic is not warranted: the current declines are relatively mild and the global share of democratic countries remains close to its all-time high. As it was premature to announce the “end of history” in 1992, it is premature to proclaim the “end of democracy” now.
|
|
| 10. |
- Lührmann, Anna, 1983, et al.
(author)
-
Autocratization by Decree: States of Emergency and Democratic Decline
- 2021
-
In: Comparative politics. - 0010-4159. ; 53:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- States of emergency grant chief executives the power to bypass democratic constraints in order to combat existential threats. As such, they are ideal tools to erode democratic institutions while maintaining the illusion of constitutional legitimacy. Therefore, states of emergency should be associated with a heightened risk of autocratization––a decline in a regime’s democratic attributes. Despite this theoretical link and the contemporary relevance of both autocratization and states of emergency, no prior study has empirically tested this relationship. This article tests this relationship using data on sixty democracies for 1974 to 2016. We find that democracies are 75 percent more likely to erode under a state of emergency. This evidence strongly suggests that states of emergency circumvent democratic processes in ways that might promote democratic decline.
|
|
