Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
|
Loading... Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politicsby Lucan Way
None No current Talk conversations about this book. 1   thcson | Mar 26, 2019 |  no reviews | add a review
"Focusing on regime trajectories across three countries in the former Soviet Union (Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine), Lucan Way argues that democratic political competition has often been grounded less in well-designed institutions or emerging civil society, and more in the failure of authoritarianism. In many cases, pluralism has persisted because autocrats have been too weak to steal elections, repress opposition, or keep allies in line. Attention to the dynamics of this "pluralism by default" reveals an important but largely unrecognized contradiction in the transition process in many countries - namely, that the same factors that facilitate democratic and semi-democratic political competition may also thwart the development of stable, well-functioning democratic institutions. Weak states and parties - factors typically seen as sources of democratic failure - can also undermine efforts to crack down on political opposition and concentrate political control"--
"Focusing on regime trajectories across the former Soviet Union, Pluralism by Default posits that political competition in "new democracies" has often been grounded less in well-designed institutions, democratic leaders, or emerging civil society and more in the failure of authoritarianism. Lucan Way contends that pluralism has persisted in many cases because autocrats lack the organization, authority, or coordination to steal elections, impose censorship, repress opposition, or keep allies in line. Attention to the dynamics of this "pluralism by default" reveals a largely unrecognized contradiction in the transition process: the same factors that facilitate democratic and semi-democratic political competition may also thwart the development of stable, well-functioning democratic institutions. National divisions or weak states and parties--typically seen as impediments to democracy--can also stymie efforts to crack down on political opposition and concentrate control. Way demonstrates that the features that have made Ukraine the most democratic country in the former Soviet Union also contributed to the country's extreme dysfunction and descent into war in 2014"-- No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers 
 Google Books — Loading...GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)323.040947Social sciences Political Science Civil and political rights Civil Rights Essays; Special TopicsLC ClassificationRatingAverage: No ratings.Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia in English
The author discusses this argument in light of political developments in the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus after the breakup of the Soviet Union. He maintains that national identity is a key variable. The Ukraine saw much more political plurality than Belarus because a much larger proportion of Ukraine's population had a strong national identity than in Belarus (where identities were strongly Russian).
Nevertheless, pluralism has not exactly yielded functioning democracies in the former Soviet republics where it emerged by default. Corruption may be even greater in countries where warring political factions alternately hold power than under autocratic leaders. The author adopts a somewhat detached perspective and refrains from discussing what benefits default pluralism has over authoritarianism. He also seems to have a pessimistic outlook on democratic grass-roots activism and international pressure for democratization. Most citizens are motivated by feelings of group identity rather than democratic ideals. Power-holders can often exploit this fact when they control the resources of the state.
An additional thought which came to mind when reading this book was that it would be interesting to compare the Ukraine and Belarus to Latin American countries which have also shifted between democracy and autocracy. To what extent has pluralism emerged by default there?