Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): Glenn E. Robinson, Harold Trinkunas. Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-72). Also available online.

By now it has become a common observation that liberal and republican models of democracy are inadequate in making sense of the expansive political landscape in today’s complex and pluralistic societies. Deliberative democracy has become a new favorite amongst scholars in the attempt to reinvigorate democracy through normative frameworks that emphasize rationality, consensus and informed discussions. On the other hand, scholars have questioned whether the this model is effective with regards to present forms of political engagements that are often mediatized and staged in ways that fall short of deliberative ideals. This research moves beyond these models in the attempt to better capture the complex power relations that underpin contemporary liberal democratic societies. This involves rethinking concepts of political legitimacy and the public sphere. Through interrogating Habermas’s discourse model of democracy and putting him in dialogue with the works of Lefort and Foucault, it will be demonstrated that it is useful to view political legitimacy not as a status but a process in which individuals legitimate or de-legitimate the power relations that they find themselves in. In addition, the public sphere should be conceptualized as the public stage, in which individuals must struggle with not only the state apparatuses, but also with oppressive or dominating forms of power, in the government of both themselves and others. By redefining these two important concepts in political philosophy, this research seeks to rethink modern democracy as constituting the very condition of indeterminacy. / published_or_final_version / Philosophy / Master / Master of Philosophy

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Sociology / Master / Master of Philosophy

No description available.

No description available.

Throughout Latin America the conservative terms established at the outset of democratization, which often limited the scope of democracy for the preservation of stability, have been exhausted. Coinciding with the emergence of the Latin American left, the initial terms of democracy are being redefined through the reconstitution of the state and the renegotiation of the role of the state in the economy. These phenomena are presently and precipitously unfolding in Bolivia. Bolivia’s failure to establish substantively democratic institutions resulted in a political-economy orientation incongruent to the preferences of the electorate. The electorate was forced to push their interests by means of increasingly assertive social movements, which coalesced, forming viable leftist party alternatives. Seeking to redefine the parameters of the state, the actualization of the left’s nationalization agenda reversed decades-old policies of privatization that had been maintained through pacted executive legislative relations. In redefining Bolivian democracy, the left has confronted a resistant opposition, which has thrust the country into a political impasse, the outcome of which has yet to be determined.

No description available.

The transition from having been under another country’s control to becoming a democratic country can, many times, pose difficulties, which has proven itself to be quite common. Estonia and Moldova’s processes towards a democratic regime are two examples of countries with varied success in the final transition phase. When the USSR (Soviet union) fell and collapsed in 1991 Estonia was well on their way from having a communistic ruling to a democratic one due to the fact that their democratic work had already begun a few years prior to 1991. After the collapse Estonia continued with their democratic work and in 2004 the country became a EU member state. Moldova, compared to Estonia, had grave difficulties early on with their democratic work. The country was separated in 1992 and, as a result, the government did not have control over the entire country. Due to this the state of law did not extend over the entire country, which made it difficult for the government to continue with their democratic work. To succeed with consolidation there has to exist positive attitudes and a desire to follow the democratic rules, which did exist in Estonia however, in Moldova, it was lacking. The purpose of this investigation is to discover the causes behind the two countries’ success with democracy, or the lack off, as well as, from a consolidation perspective, investigating into why Estonia and not Moldova was able to establish a stable democracy. The results show that the five consolidation aspects, which were analyzed in this investigation, carry the responsibilities behind the success of the countries’ democratic processes and also, the reason for why democracy thrived in Estonia and not in Moldova. The consolidation viewpoint show that the Moldovan republic had a difficult time succeeding with democracy due to the country’s separation as well as their nationality crisis. The viewpoint also shows how Estonia early on had its people’s positive attitudes supporting them, which made it easier to implement different economical, political and social reforms.

No description available.