| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
159583
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As democracy develops in poor countries around the world, wealthier countries have sought to enhance social development and democratization through foreign aid. Although the national state has historically been the recipient of aid, some donors have begun to consider donations to local governments. If local government is democratic, it may deliver aid more immediately than does national government. The question relates to concerns in comparative politics about which level of government best enhances democratization, the national or the local level. This article speaks to International Relations and comparative politics by suggesting that, under sequencing conditions that grant political autonomy first, local government can be democratic and can be an effective recipient for aid. The article explores the Nicaraguan case where these conditions prevailed to show how this scenario can unfold. In Nicaragua, donors have had a powerful effect on improving people’s lives and on advancing democratization. As the democratic quality of the national government has declined, foreign aid has continued to advance democratization by providing mayors with a resource base independent of national government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
100844
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Parties can be a crucial to democratic function but not all parties or party systems are democratic. Some parties are fully competitive within a pluralist system while others, notably hegemonic parties, are antithetical to democracy. Between competitive, pluralist party systems and hegemonic party systems lie predominant party systems. These are compatible with democracy where democracy is fully consolidated but inhibit democratic consolidation in settings with an authoritarian history or where the rule of law is incomplete. The effect of predominant parties in unconsolidated democracies has not been fully studied in comparative context. I scrutinize this problem in Argentina, which has followed an electoral calendar for two decades, but lacks a fully pluralist system of power-sharing among two nationally-competitive parties. The authoritarian background of Peronism, of Argentina itself and the limited competitive potential of the Radical Party have curtailed democratic development. The article underscores the seriousness of Argentina's dilemma by contrasting its situation with Democratic Party predominance in the United States Deep South in the 1940s. The comparison of democratic development in an older democracy with that of a newer democracy illustrates that some of the processes of consolidation are similar and that the experience of older democracies may indicate possible solutions for newer democracies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|