No / Incorporated into the discourse of academics, policymakers, and grassroots activists, of multilateral development agencies and local NGOs alike, "civil society" has become a topic of widespread discussion. But is there in fact any common understanding of the term? How useful is it when applied to the South, and what difference does it make to bring the concept into the debate on development? Howell and Pearce explore the complex relationships among civil society, the state, and market in the context of democratic development. Drawing on case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, they also unravel what is meant by development agencies¿bilaterals, multilaterals, NGOs, and international financial institutions, with their diverse approaches and agendas¿when they refer to the urgent need to strengthen civil society.

<p>This is a study of whether it is possible for the governmental form of democracy to be ap-plicable in states that have not had democracy as their governmental form earlier in their political history. In this thesis the concept of liberal democracy is the major theory used as well as the concepts of rule of law and civil society. After giving a description of the con-cepts the thesis continues with two chapters that respectively describe and explain the states of Belarus and Cuba. The two states are going to be used in the analysis at the end of this thesis.</p><p>The analysis includes several conditions to asses if democracy exists. These conditions are derived from the chapters on democracy and rule of law. In the analysis the states of Bela-rus and Cuba are analyzed based on the conditions derived from the chapters on democra-cy and rule of law. The results of the concluding discussion are that the probability for de-mocracy to survive in Cuba is higher than in Belarus because Cuba seems to be transition from an authoritarian form of regime to a form o f democracy. In contrast to Belarus, Cu-ba seems to be willing to open up from seclusion and isolation, as well as listen to its people than what the state of Belarus is willing to do.</p>

A research report submitted to the School of Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Degree of Master of Arts in International Relations by coursework and research report. / In the early 1990s, issues of democracy, good governance, security and human rights became more prominent in the international system and attained space in various policy documents. The period has been characterized by massive waves of transitions from one-party to multi-party political systems, which can be described as global democratic revolutions. Such democratic revolutions or movement towards democracy was not confined to one territory; rather it was a worldwide phenomenon that reached many parts of the world such as Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. It involved radical political transitions due to pressure to promote political liberalization and foster democratic reforms in most of these countries. The push for democratization was led by various democratic actors such as the European Union, United States of America, Britain, Norway, Canada and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank among others. The waves and calls for democratization by these actors have resulted in various democratic transition outcomes in which some of the recipient countries of external democratic support are left stuck in the process while some of them have completely failed and reverted back to authoritarian or oppressive regimes. Countries that have failed in the democratization process experience various consequences such as limited access to the media, fragmented opposition political parties, fraudulent electoral activities, violence and poor citizen participation. These shortfalls reflect gaps or inconsistencies in the outcomes of the democratization process that needs to be investigated. This study looks at the factors causing inconsistencies in the outcomes of the process.

<p>The first purpose of this study is to examine if democratic aid is a statistically and/or substantially significant determinant of democratic development among semi-democratic states. The second purpose is to discuss the effects of democratic aid in light of the theory of ‘democratic peace’, and the debate on whether exogenous or endogenous factors are primary for democratic development. The research question is: how much, if at all, has democratic aid contributed to democratic development among semi-democratic states from 2000 to 2004?</p><p>The thesis is delimited to observing the total population of states that were semi-democratic in the year 1999, i.e. 56 countries. Moreover, it only detects the potential impact of democratic aid over one five-year period, namely 2000-2004.</p><p>Data from the Freedom House Index (FHI) has been used to distinguish states with semi-democratic regimes from states with other regime-types, and, moreover, to construct two indicators of the dependent variable. The utilized dataset on democratic aid is provided by the Creditor Reporting System (CRS), issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Furthermore, in order to assess the effects of democratic aid, a multiple regression model is employed that controls for nine other variables which have been found to have significant impacts on democratic development in relevant previous research.</p><p>The conclusion is that democratic aid neither had a statistically nor a substantially significant impact on democratic development of semi-democratic states from 2000 to 2004. Thus, it does not strengthen the ‘exogenous standpoint’ for democratic development, and it does not appear to contribute to an expansion of ‘democratic peace’. However, due to a number of factors, it is acknowledged that more research is required in order to assess the effects of democratic aid more adequately.      </p><p> </p>

No description available.

The last 15 years has exemplified severe deficiencies in the institutional design of the European Union (EU). The EU suffers from a democratic deficit, which is demonstrated in the neglect if citizens preferences and their influence on decision making processes. This democratic deficit impacts not only the authority and legitimacy of the union but raises concerns between the EU and the world. The democratic deficit remains because of the lack of a European public sphere (EPS), an element which Habermas argues is necessary for democracy development. While previous research has found evidence for its existence in social networks and masss-media, this study broadens the field and investigates the potential existence if an EPS in a physical political network, namely the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). By conducting a quantitative content analysis, the study reveals clear indications of an EPS within the committee in which it is highly engaged in. Their engagement in the sphere is crucial to increase influence and power, as their engagement can decrease the democratic deficit, increase the legitimacy of the EU, and favour smooth cooperation between the member states, and between the EU and the world.

No description available.

The first purpose of this study is to examine if democratic aid is a statistically and/or substantially significant determinant of democratic development among semi-democratic states. The second purpose is to discuss the effects of democratic aid in light of the theory of ‘democratic peace’, and the debate on whether exogenous or endogenous factors are primary for democratic development. The research question is: how much, if at all, has democratic aid contributed to democratic development among semi-democratic states from 2000 to 2004? The thesis is delimited to observing the total population of states that were semi-democratic in the year 1999, i.e. 56 countries. Moreover, it only detects the potential impact of democratic aid over one five-year period, namely 2000-2004. Data from the Freedom House Index (FHI) has been used to distinguish states with semi-democratic regimes from states with other regime-types, and, moreover, to construct two indicators of the dependent variable. The utilized dataset on democratic aid is provided by the Creditor Reporting System (CRS), issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Furthermore, in order to assess the effects of democratic aid, a multiple regression model is employed that controls for nine other variables which have been found to have significant impacts on democratic development in relevant previous research. The conclusion is that democratic aid neither had a statistically nor a substantially significant impact on democratic development of semi-democratic states from 2000 to 2004. Thus, it does not strengthen the ‘exogenous standpoint’ for democratic development, and it does not appear to contribute to an expansion of ‘democratic peace’. However, due to a number of factors, it is acknowledged that more research is required in order to assess the effects of democratic aid more adequately.

This is a study of whether it is possible for the governmental form of democracy to be ap-plicable in states that have not had democracy as their governmental form earlier in their political history. In this thesis the concept of liberal democracy is the major theory used as well as the concepts of rule of law and civil society. After giving a description of the con-cepts the thesis continues with two chapters that respectively describe and explain the states of Belarus and Cuba. The two states are going to be used in the analysis at the end of this thesis. The analysis includes several conditions to asses if democracy exists. These conditions are derived from the chapters on democracy and rule of law. In the analysis the states of Bela-rus and Cuba are analyzed based on the conditions derived from the chapters on democra-cy and rule of law. The results of the concluding discussion are that the probability for de-mocracy to survive in Cuba is higher than in Belarus because Cuba seems to be transition from an authoritarian form of regime to a form o f democracy. In contrast to Belarus, Cu-ba seems to be willing to open up from seclusion and isolation, as well as listen to its people than what the state of Belarus is willing to do.

This essay will try to explain and compare the different development steps which Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have taken after the war. How could countries with such similar backgrounds develop in such different ways? By analyzing and comparing the two countries the purpose was to examine how these countries which had so much in common could develop in so different ways.  My two questions are:  What similarities and differences are there between the development which Bosnia and Croatia have taken after the war?  Why have Croatia succeeded and not Bosnia? My analysis showed that the main reason to the difference between these countries was that Bosnia is divided; all ethnic groups in Bosnia only consider what's best for their own ethnic group and not what's best for the country. Croatia however has expelled the Serbs which made it easier for them to have a succesfull democratic development.