This essay aims to explain why Colombia has not consolidated into a liberal democracy between the years 1991 to 2015. To examine the purpose of this essay five interactive arenas are analyzed in order to describe to which extent Colombia is affected by the various arenas. Three questions are being discussed and answered; to which extent have the political society and civil society affected the consolidation of a liberal democracy, to which extent have rule of law and the state bureaucracy affected the consolidation of a liberal democracy and, to which extent have the economic society affected the consolidation of a liberal democracy.The theoretical framework is based upon theories regarding different types of democracy and democratic consolidation. The essay is a theory consuming case study, with descriptive questions and explanatory approach. The framework is used to qualitatively illuminate empirical material to the study research questions. The conclusions of this essay shows that Colombia has not consolidated into a liberal democracy because of large illegal activities, physical attacks from non-state groups, widespread distrust of the political system and absence of conflict resolution through a democratic process.

This essay aims to investigate and analyse the extent to which there are conditions in Guatemala and Honduras to introduce liberal democracy, how the countries conditions differ and to draw conclusions about which country  that has the most conditions and thus is the most likely to introduce liberal democracy. The theoretical framework that this essay is based on is Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan's four arenas; civil society, political society, the rule of law and the state bureaucracy. In order to reach the purpose, a comparative case study was done. The  conclusions  of  this  essay shows that both countries have, to some extent, conditions to introduce liberal democracy, however they also lack conditions within other areas.

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.

This paper aims at analyzing and understanding the political conflict between the EU and member states Hungary and Poland that has increased in recent years. Though this paper's focus will be on the different understanding and application of democracy, its meaning and values. By understanding the different approach to democracy, through liberal democracy and illiberal democracy, one may understand the conflict better and its implication for European integration. This paper analyses the democratic development in Hungary and Poland, the theories behind their development and its response from the EU. The importance of understanding the core values of democracy and understanding of it, be it liberal democracy or illiberal democracy, is not to be underestimated. Only by understanding these differences in core values can we understand the conflict of Rule of Law between the EU and its illiberal member states. This paper concludes that the negative democratic development in these states and their governments' public philosophical and political narratives for their reforms are not in coordination with neither reality nor public opinion. It also finds that the development of illiberal democracies within the EU is a threat to future European integration and the normative legitimacy of the EU in internal and foreign matters.

Statistics from Freedom House show that 2018 is the thirteenth consecutive year with democratic decline. This paper examines underlying causes to this democratic decline. This is done through literature review of current research in the field of democracy development. By using descriptive idea analysis of selected research literature, the paper aims to clarify the current debate on the challenges of democracy. The study somewhat supports that long-term liberal democracy creates conditions that potentially cause its own retreat. This is because long-term liberal democracy provides peace and growth, which is unequally distributed in society and leads to increased social divisions. As a result, large groups of people no longer feel included in society, which in turn will pave the way for populist movements and potential autocratic leaders. The study also somewhat supports that there has been a weakening in the functioning of the democratic institutions to act as gatekeepers, keeping potential autocrats out of power. Increased democracy and transparency in the democratic processes has made it easier for potential autocrats to come to power. All in all, there is some support for the hypothesis of the essay: The more democracy the greater the risk that the democratic system will weaken.