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.

The purpose of this study is to examine how the concept of democracy and education for democracy are formulated in school policy documents related to the four teacher’s description of their work with democracy in the civic subject. The study is based on the following questions:  What type of democracy is presented in the school curriculum as well as other school policy documents? How do the participant teachers understand democracy? How do the participant teachers describe and motivate their work with democracy? This study is made through a qualitative method based on a contextual analysis and interviews with four teachers working in grade 1-3. The study is based on two theoretical extensions and these are electoral-, participate-, deliberate democracy and the traditional- , liberal progressive-, social critical orientated views. Common to the four school policy documents that have been analysed, the most prominent conceptions of and approaches to democracy is participatory and deliberative democratic perspectives. The results show that the school documents and the teacher’s description of democracy rarely mention electoral democracy. However, it can be seen in the school policy documents that there is a notion that knowledge about democracy.  That is, knowledge of political ideologies and the selection process, is required to enable participatory and deliberative democracy.  Teachers understanding of democracy show mainly participatory democracy perspective. However, it has come to shown from the interviews that the teacher’s description of their work with democracy in the civic subject mainly shows deliberative perspectives. One conclusion of this study is that the documents and the teachers' descriptions of democracy and education for democracy are quite similar.

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.

<p>In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy.</p><p>The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections.</p><p>There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability.</p><p>The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical.</p><p>The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average.</p><p>In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point.</p><p>One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.</p>

In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy. The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections. There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability. The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical. The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average. In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point. One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.

In the mid-20th century the assignment of nurturing democratic citizens in Swedish schools, was first proposed and implemented. Since then, the democratic assignment has been put aside by the schools´ second assignment: communicating knowledge. The aim of this essay is to once again bring light on this forgotten assignment. I have gathered the material for this essay by interviewing five teachers of upper secondary school. By the use of three ideal types of democratic theory I then analyze the material to determine the teachers´ views on school democracy and their ways of using it in their teaching. The ideal types are participatory democracy, discursive democracy and representative democracy. The results show that the interviewed teachers share very similar views on school democracy, close to the ideal type participatory democracy. In their use of school democracy in teaching traces of both participatory and discursive democracy, can be found.

Tidigare forskning har kategoriserat en majoritet av svenska politiker som valdemokrater och en minoritet som deltagardemokrater. Men forskningsläget är oklart kring vad detta innebär när det kommer till deras syn på medborgerligt deltagande i politiken. Syftet med studien är att utifrån de teoretiska perspektiven valdemokrati och deltagardemokrati undersöka hur kommunfullmäktigeledamöter ställer sig till medborgerligt deltagande i den kommunala politiken. Genom en kvantitativ enkätundersökning har ett sammanvägt jämförelsetal tagits fram som både nyanserar bilden av hur trogna ledamöterna är de teoretiska perspektiven och tillåter jämförelse mellan olika grupper. Ledamöter i 80 slumpmässigt utvalda kommuner bjöds in att delta i undersökningen och resultatet pekar på att majoriteten enbart har svaga tendenser åt de olika teoretiska ytterligheterna. Fyra hypoteser testades i studien för att se om det förekommer ett samband mellan ledamöternas könsidentitet, position i kommunen, politiska erfarenhet samt befolkningsmängd i kommunen och synen på medborgerligt deltagande. Statistiskt säkerställda samband kunde påvisas mellan synen på medborgerligt deltagande och ledamöternas könsidentitet samt position i kommunfullmäktige (styrande eller opposition). Samband kunde delvis påvisas mellan ledamöternas politiska erfarenhet och syn på medborgerligt deltagande, men inget samband kunde påvisas mellan befolkningsmängden i kommunen och ledamöternas syn på medborgerligt deltagande. Studiens slutsats är att en majoritet av ledamöterna stödjer vissa deltagardemokratiska inslag i demokratin och att position i kommunfullmäktige är den faktor som samvarierar mest med synen på medborgerligt deltagande, där oppositionen är mer positiva. Kvinnliga ledamöter framstår som något mer positiva till medborgerligt deltagande än manliga. Det förekommer också stora variationer beroende på ledamöternas partitillhörighet. Studien pekar på behovet av fortsatt forskning kring politikers syn på medborgerligt deltagande.

Teaching students about democracy and strengthening their abilities to act and perform within a democratic society is according to the curricula for the Swedish educational system an important task for any Swedish teacher. In social sciences, however, these aspects play an even greater role as the current curricula for civic education clearly states that civic education should offer students the opportunity to learn about democracy and its various forms and mechanisms. As there are probably about as many thoughts and views on democracy as there are people, it is to be expected that all teachers do not treat the subject the same. Previous studies have shown that there are discrepancies between how democracy is being implemented during classes, which has proved to be a problem that affects students’ further ability and wishes to engage and act within a democratic system outside and after school. For this reason, I have chosen to further study this phenomenon, to see whether there truly are differences regarding the implementation of democracy in different classrooms, and if these differences can be associated with which course or program the students are taking.  The study has been done through participant observation, where I have examined how teachers in four different courses of civic education in upper secondary school implement democracy in their classes. In the analysis I have sought for signs of discrepancies depending on which course the students have been studying (through vocational or university preparatory programs) and tried to see which form of democracy (electoral or deliberative democracy) that seems to permeate the classroom activity the most. Judging from these observations, it seems that the further up the course ladder we climb, the more deliberative the classroom democracy seems to get.