In my paper I have examined the United Nations role in the democratization of Kosovo. In order to complete this purpose I have asked two questions • How has the UN contributed to the democratization of Kosovo that has taken place so far? • What advantages and/or disadvantages has the UN presence in Kosovo had from a democratic perspective? The method I have used in my paper is a qualitative one, and more specified a qualitative text analysis. This means that I have examined a rather small number of sources, but in return I have analyzed these sources very carefully. In addition to the choice of a qualitative method I have used Robert A. Dahl’s theory about polyarcy as a definition of democracy. The results from my analysis are that the UN has done some work in favour of the democratization of Kosovo, but the UN has also acted in a way which restrains democratization of Kosovo in many ways. The main reason why the UN hinders the democratization of Kosovo is it’s unwillingness to let go of its power over the region to the local officials.

Bortom historien slut – Beyond the end of history According to Robert Dahl there are seven criteria that have to be fulfilled in order for a state to be democratic. Dahl also states that there are several factors that effect the development of democracy. In today’s world it is mostly developing countries that have failed to bring about democratic changes. It is the developing country that is in focus in this thesis. The purpose is to examine if there are any particularly advantageous factors that can bring about or promote the development of democratic institutions. The questions are: What factor has effected the development of democratic institutions? Which, if any, of Dahl’s seven criteria is found within each state today?; do they correctly reflect the democratic situation? Can any connection between the states democratic development be found in a comparison? In a comparison between nine countries the different factors have been examined. The result shows that pluralism is a key factor for development of democracy in a developing country. External influence is on the other hand not important. Keywords: developing countries, democratization, Robert Dahl Nyckerlord: utvecklingsländer, demokratisering

Abstract Växjö University, School of Social Sciences Bachelor thesis Title: Ansvaret för skolan – en studie om ansvarsfördelningen ur ett nyinstitutionalistiskt perspektiv Author: Hanna Jansson Supervisor: Conny Johannesson The aim of the study is to investigate which ideas that dominated the official political debate concerning the responsibility distribution for the Swedish school from 1974 to 1991. The study asks two questions: What ideas have dominated the official political debate concerning the responsibility distribution for the Swedish school from 1974 to 1991? and Why did the responsibility of the Swedish school change in 1991? In order to answer these questions an idea analysis were used. Three ideal types concerning democracy, effectivity and professionalism were used in analysing official governmental documents. The conclusion is that all three ideal types dominated the debate concerning the responsibility distribution, but in different degrees, and they can also explain why a new responsibility distribution came up in 1991.

The purpose of this essay is to study what conditions Afghanistan and Iraq have in order to create democracy in their countries. The study is interesting in a political science perspective because it engages many scientists how democracy can be created in authoritarian states. The overall questions my study is based on are: - What are the conditions for Afghanistan and Iraq to develop democracy based on Dankwart Rustow's four democratization phases? and which of these countries Afghanistan or Iraq has bigger chance to develop democracy in its country? My approach to answering my questions has been to study Dankwart Rustow’s theory based on that the creation of democracy can be achieved by four different democracy phases: unit phase, dissolution phase, transition phase and consolidation phase. The conclusion of my study shows that Afghanistan and Iraq have the same conditions for democracy, but Iraq has come further in its democratization and has more opportunities to develop democracy in its country compared to Afghanistan. This is because Iraq has not been involved in any long term war and that Afghanistan is still in civil war with the Taliban, which prevents democratic development in their country. / Syftet med denna uppsats är att studera vilka förutsättningar Afghanistan och Irak har för att utveckla demokrati i sina länder. Studien är intressant ur ett statsvetenskapligt perspektiv eftersom det engagerar många forskare hur demokrati kan skapas i auktoritära stater. De övergripande frågeställningarna som min studie är baserad på är: -Hur ser förutsättningarna ut för Afghanistan och Irak att utveckla demokrati utifrån Dankwart Rustows fyra demokratiserings faser? och vilka av dessa länder Afghanistan eller Irak har störst möjlighet att utveckla demokrati i sitt land? Mitt tillvägagångssätt för att besvara mina frågor har varit att studera Dankwart Rustows teori, som bygger på att demokrati kan skapas utifrån att fyra olika demokratifaser uppnås: enhetsfas, upplösningsfas, övergångsfas och konsolideringsfas. Uppsatsens slutsats visar på att Afghanistan och Irak har liknande förutsättningar att skapa demokrati men att Irak har kommit längre i sin demokratisering och har större förutsättningar att kunna utveckla demokrati än Afghanistan. Det beror på att Irak inte har varit inblandat i några långvariga krig och att Afghanistan fortfarande är i inbördeskrig med talibanerna, vilket förhindrar en demokratisk utveckling i deras land.

The people in Tunisia demanded democracy and civil liberties, which led to large-scale demonstrations against the Tunisian regime in December 2010. The demonstrations against the authoritarian regime was considered to be the beginning of the Arab Spring. Of all states that was affected by the Arabic Spring, Tunisia became that one country that succeeded their transition from an authoritarian state to a democratic one. In order to analyze why Tunisia became a democratic state, this study aims to clarify what factors that affected the democratization process. Through the theoretical framework of Samuel P. Huntington, the factors that affected the third wave democratization are used in this study in order to analyze the Tunisian democratization and transition. Through analyzation; deepening legitimacy problems of the regime and economic growth was considered to affect the Tunisian democratization. Actions of external actors partly affected the country’s democratization. However, religious changes and snowballing effects was considered not to have an impact on the democratization and transition towards democracy.

Ever since its inception, the EU’s main goal has always been to spread its values of democracy and freedom. The EU’s success in spreading these values has been great until recently when some of the member states have gone through an autocratization. The clearest case of this is Hungary, which can no longer be seen as a democracy, due to its autocratization. Seeing as the EU has certain demands in democracy for countries that want to join the EU, it is strange that they let Hungary continue to be a part of the EU.  This paper will examine what the EU has done to hinder Hungary’s autocratization through its normative power. The results show that the EU has penalised Hungary in terms of sanctions and an article-7 procedure. Though, the EU is far away from throwing Hungary out of the EU, mostly because it is near impossible for the EU to exclude Hungary from the EU. The only way that Hungary can leave the EU is by their own choice.

Botswana's democracy has been labeled as ‘the African Miracle’ by the international community. However, in its 50 years of independence, there has been no change in government from the ruling party and the opposition is institutionally weak. The purpose for this study is to analyze the extent of democratic consolidation in Botswana and to try to analyze the challenges in the processes of democratic consolidation. In order to answer the research questions that are put forth in this study, Linz and Stepan’s theoretical framework were used against empirical evidence about Botswana from its independence in 1965 to 2015. The results show that in Botswana the democracy is not consolidated and point toward a more stable democracy than a deeply consolidated democracy. Stable democracy is centered upon the actual functions rather the depth of democracy. The main challenges for further democratic consolidation is the constitutional framework that lack accountability for the executive, the longevity of a dominant party system, the uneven ‘playing field’, the weak opposition, the restrictions and limitation upon the independent media and the civil society. Botswana’s exceptional reputation is exaggerated, while the country have had uninterrupted elections, the depth and quality of the democracy is shallow.

The purpose with this essay was to examine how the European Union is working totransfer norms to states they signed an agreement with and provide support for inframe of the Barcelona process and the Tacis programme. The theory which weused was Ian Manners (PhD in Political Science) theory of "the EU as a uniquenormative power". The aim was to examine whether the EU - which Manners mean- has had a normative power to influence states to change. We used a qualitativeapproach through the use of a multiple case study and qualitative text and contentanalysis. The States which formed the basis of our study were within the BarcelonaProcess; Morocco and Tunisia as well as Azerbaijan and Armenia funded by theTacis programme. To this end, we were to answer the following questions: Can weidentify transfer of norms in the written bilateral agreements with these states, andare there any normative demands? Can we on the basis of our study answerwhether the EU holds a normative power to influence these countries to change, inaccordance with the normative theory? The agreements that we studied was thebilateral agreements that the EU signed with these States. In order to makeManners five norms (peace, freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights),which he argues that EU is based on measurable; we used the Freedom Housefreedom index, and also by a historical study the development of the country. Theresults we found were the following; in all the studied bilateral agreements wefound clear - but to varying degrees - the transfer of norms. Although it differs indegree of regulatory requirements and also in the formulation of how the country iscommitted to abide by and comply with the normative requirements differaccording to the agreements, we can find the so-called "carrot and stickrelationship" that Manners believes that the EU use in the transfer of norms. Threeof the states that we investigated under the Freedom House freedom index did notdeveloped in a democratic way did, and the positive steps taken cannot be directlytraced back to the EU's efforts. It may also be due to other States or other forcesinfluence. We can’t, through our study confirm that Manners is right in these statesbut we can’t either rule out the possibility that the EU through the writtenagreements has changed the norms of the state in question, although progressseems to go very slowly. / Vi ämnade med denna uppsats undersöka hur den Europeiska Unionen arbetar för att överföranormer till stater man slutit avtal med och ger stöd till inom ramen för Barcelonaprocessenoch Tacis-programmet. Den teori som vi använde var Ian Manners teori om "EU som en uniknormativ makt". Syftet var att undersöka om EU - som Manner menar - har haft en normativmakt att påverka stater till normativ förändring. Vi använde ett kvalitativt angreppssätt medhjälp av en multipel fallstudie och kvalitativ text- och innehållsanalys. De stater som utgjordegrunden för vår studie var inom Barcelonaprocessen; Marocko och Tunisien samtAzerbajdzjan och Armenien inom Tacis-programmet. Följande frågeställningar skullebesvaras; Kan vi se överföring av normer i de skrivna avtalen med dessa stater, ställs detnormativa krav på länderna? Kan vi utifrån vår undersökning ge svar på huruvida EU inneharen normativ makt att påverka dessa länder till förändring? De avtal som vi studerat var debilaterala avtal som EU tecknat med dessa stater mellan 1995 och 1996. För att göra Mannersfem normer, (fred, frihet, demokrati, rättsstat och mänskliga rättigheter) som han menar attEU grundar sig på, mätbara, så använde vi å ena sidan Freedom House frihetsindex, menockså en historisk studie av landets utveckling. De resultat vi kom fram till var att vi i alla destuderade bilaterala avtalen fann tydliga - men i varierande grad - överföringar av normer frånEU till länderna. Vi kan i avtalen se att man ställer krav på att länderna ska utvecklasdemokratiskt och verka för mänskliga rättigheter, fred och rättssamhället. Vi kan även finnaspår av det s.k. "piska och morot förhållande" som Manners menar att EU använder sig av irelationen med andra stater.Tunisien, Armenien och Azerbajdzjan har enligt Freedom House frihetsindex inte utvecklasmot en demokratisk riktning till 2006. I Marocko fann vi att en viss positiv förändring skett ienlighet med EU:s normer och att vi även kan se en marginell utveckling mot demokratiskaprinciper. Resultatet visar även att vi inte kan härleda de få positiva steg som tagits, till EU:sBarcelonaprocess och Tacis-program. Den positiva utveckling vi kan se kan också bero på attandra aktörer eller krafter haft påverkan på landet i fråga. Det vi kan säga är att EU inomramen för Barcelonaprocessen och Tacis-programmet är benägna att verka normativt mot defyra staterna, då de ställer krav på normativ förändring genom de undersökta avtalen. Vad vidäremot inte kunnat bekräfta genom vår studie, är att EU - i enlighet med Manners normativateori - verkligen kunnat förändra normer i de stater vi studerat.

Abstract Bachelor thesis in political science by Alexander Hassan, autumn 2008, “Effects of external factors on a nations democratisation process during the transition from authoritarian to electoral democratic rule – A categorical analysis” Supervisor: Tomas Sedelius In recent years globalization has become a hot topic in understanding the world we live in today. Globalization has indeed had a great impact on international relations and with it a great influence on the domestic conditions that determine a nation’s possibilities. It is therefore rational to hold true that this also would apply to a nation’s democratic process. This basic notion is what lies as a foundation for the thesis, where the purpose of the study is to examine the relatively new field of the international context and its significance on democratisation. The aim of the study is to examine and determine, through a categorical analysis, the different forms and roles that the external factors can take during the process leading up to the transition and implementation of an electoral democracy, the most basic form of democracy. The thesis thus has demanded the study and infusion of all discourses within the field of democratisation processes, as the only way to produce the roles and forms of the international contexts impact on the domestic process is through the study and determination of the different domestic spheres associated with the process. The different forms of external influences have been studied within the confines of the third wave of democracy, and their roles in the democratic process determined depending on the respective domestic spheres they affect. The significant result of the studies where chiefly that all forms of external influence have the possibility to affect the democratisation process indirectly as well as directly. Where direct influence is exerted within the political sphere of the nation; where the actual transition takes place, and the indirect influence is exerted through the socio-economical and cultural sphere; which exerts its influence in the process through the political sphere.  The results thus show that it is hard to draw the conclusion that an indirect form of influence would be superior to the direct approach or vice versa, as both are prevalent in successful democratic transitions.

As our world globalizes and grows smaller, there is increasing concern about questions related to the future of liberal democracy. Following the breakdown of communism on the European continent and the ensuing emphasis on the universalization of liberal democratic values as ‘the end of history’, much research has been centered on understanding the crafting of stable democratic systems in East-Central Europe. Recently, the widely observed phenomenon of ‘illiberal backsliding’ has evoked considerable scholarly attention. However, the research community lacks a deeper understanding of the factors determining the prospects of sustainable democratic consolidation in a post-authoritarian environment. This case study therefore relates the problems associated with anchoring democratic governance in the post-communist states of East-Central Europe to a broader framework of democratization theories. It is argued that consolidating democracies is a far more complex task than has earlier been acknowledged, as it depends on a multitude of interrelated socio-cultural and political determinants. As is further proposed, the post-communist countries have largely been entrapped in an unsustainable state of incomplete democratic consolidation, evident specifically in the prevalent lack of civic culture and a deficient process of citizenship formation, entailing a serious risk of authoritarian backlash. A somewhat paradoxical hypothesis is suggested: that periods of illiberal government actually could be instrumental to generate the kind of social community needed for a long-term sustainable democratic society. In a concluding discussion on the prospects of consolidating democracy on a global scale, it is stated that the liberal democratic endeavor may be facing two future trajectories: while the first one is that of a global democratic decline in the face of authoritarian reaction, the opposite trajectory implies that liberal democracy may well have a universal future, although to accelerate to that point, it needs to overcome an initial state of instability requiring some setbacks.