Sammanfattning Turkiet är ett land som, i takt med en stärkt ekonomi, fått ett ökat inflytande i omvärlden. Landet står dessutom i egenskap av kandidatland till EU på Europas tröskel. Men hur stark är egentligen demokratin i Turkiet och vad har landet för utsikter att utvecklas mot en konsoliderad demokrati? Genom analysfrågan:Har demokratin i det turkiska samhället stärkts under perioden 2002 till 2013? ämnar denna uppsats svara på frågeställningen: Vilka förutsättningar har samhället i Turkiet att utvecklas i riktning mot demokratisk konsolidering, sett utifrån Juan J. Linz och Alfred Stepans teori? I denna uppsats utgörs demokratisk konsolidering av tre antaganden: De demokratiska institutionerna och principerna åtnjuter ett utbrett samhälleligt stöd. Alla beslut som fattas och alla åtgärder som vidtas i samhället genomsyras av de demokratiska principerna och ett demokratiskt agerande. De demokratiska principerna och institutionerna är så starka att de inte låter sig påverkas av större samhällsomvandlingar eller av landets ekonomiska status.  Med det turkiska samhället avses valda delar av landets civil- samt politiska samhälle. Tidsaspekten som berörs är 2002 till 2013. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att demokratin i det turkiska samhället till del har stärkts. Samtidigt som det politiska samhället upplevt breda demokratiska reformer har civilsamhället i landet gått bakåt. Detta leder fram till slutsatsen att det turkiska samhällets förutsättningar för en demokratisk konsolidering i närtid bedöms som minimala. Däremot anses det turkiska samhället på sikt ha goda möjligheter till demokratisk konsolidering. Detta givet att en fortsatt vilja avseende demokratisk konsolidering finns hos landets politiker, samtidigt som EU och andra demokratiska krafter stöttar Turkiet i denna strävan.

This essay has the ambition to examine and compare Croatia’s and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s development towards a consolidated democracy. By applying Linz & Stepen’s theory on how to consolidate a democracy and put focus on political society, behavioral patterns, attitude and constitutional structure the purpose is to find similarities and differences between Bosnia and Croatia within this field. The focus of this study is to compare two similar countries that have developed in very different ways. By applying the theory and a comparative method the purpose is to examine why two so similar countries with so much in common have developed in so different ways? In order to better answer the question there are two part questions and these are: What difficulties, concerning consolidation of democracy, have Croatia and Bosnia faced since the democratic transition in the beginning of the 1990s? What similarities and differences in the area of democratic consolidation (with focus on political society, behavioral patterns, attitude and constitutional structure) are there between the two countries? As the analysis shows, the main reason why these two countries differ so much is that Bosnia is a divided country with different nationalities and each nationality only wants to realize its own interest and does not care about what is best for the country as an entity. However, Croatia has recently realized that democracy is the best for the country and its development.

The purpose of this essay was to study the impact the Dayton Accords has had on the political society and the judicial society in Bosnia and Herzegovina today. In order to do so, the following questions were asked in the essay:“What does the political society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?”,“What does the judicial society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?” and ”What type of relation is there between the political and judicial society?”. By using consolidation theory and applying qualitative textual analysis it was conducted that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a consolidated democracy yet. The country is a transitional or hybrid regimecharacterized by a political society that: partially meets the criteria required in the organization and issuance of political elections, it does not meet the criteria for an autonomous political society, it has a wide range of political parties, and alliances between parties are common, it has election rules that benefits the three largest ethnic groups, and lastly legislators have a partly independent role as long as new legislation does not contribute to any form of sabotage of the Dayton Accords. The country has a judicial society that is: complex and inefficient when it comes to the legal system, it has striking shortcomings in the judiciary and the rule of law, there has been only marginal progress in legislation, and the Dayton agreement has not promoted stability in the country but has instead enabled segregation and discrimination. To conclude, the relation between the political and judicial society is fragile. A reform of the Dayton Agreement, in which the agenda is greater civic inclusion, would enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to move towards a more consolidated democracy.