| ID | 107444 |
| Title Proper | Democracy as a westminster heritage |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Anckar, Dag |
| Publication | 2011. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | Conventional wisdom from colonial history research has it that the states which
the British left behind them were better equipped for democratic government
than the states that had belonged to other colonial powers. Investigating the
democracy fortunes of all fifty-four territories that were freed following World
War II from British control, and applying Freedom House ratings to determine
democracy status, this study examines the belief that democratic government
has become a characteristic feature of former British possessions. Findings are
that the former colonies may be ordered roughly into three groups. Whereas
seventeen countries since 1972 have always, or almost always, been classified as
democracies, a larger portion, consisting of twenty-three countries, has always,
or almost always, been ranked as non-democracies. The remaining fourteen
countries represent an in-between category. On the whole, therefore, the idea
that democracy is a central part of the Westminster heritage overall cannot
be supported. Explanations for the division of the former colonies into three
groups have been researched in different directions, and the efforts substantiate
earlier observations in the literature on the relevance to democratization of
factors that relate to state size, modernization, and geography. Concerning the
impact of the length of colonial rule, the findings confirm an earlier suggestion
by Samuel Huntington that colonies which had a long British presence have
been particularly well equipped to develop into stable democracies. |
| `In' analytical Note | Taiwan Democracy Quarterly Vol. 7, No.1; Jul 2011: p.: 47-71 |
| Journal Source | Taiwan Democracy Quarterly Vol. 7, No.1; Jul 2011: p.: 47-71 |
| Key Words | British Empire ; Colonial Rule ; Democracy ; Diffusion ; Westminster ; Government |