Talk:Democratization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is written here that A tradition of democracy is valued only positive for a prosess of democratisation. I think that has to be more nuanced, because some kinds of tradition of democracy, like having experienced democracy in near future, also gives the country an experience of how to break down the democracy and make democratisation fail. In such cases the movements in the society that might be against democratisastion, may have the knowledge of how to do coup d'etats, and thereby becomes the tradition of democracy the cause of the breakdown of the democratising system.

That's a good point. I've changed the article to hopefully better represent this. -- Vardion 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that this article needs the ten links at the bottom of the page to articles only about Middle Eastern democratization and nothing else - appart from anything else several of the articles are things like for example a US Army war college analysis - this is not appropriate. I have tried to shift the articles to a link specifically about Middle Eastern democracy, but they keep being reverted again.This article is not about democratization in the Middle East.

With regard to the first sentence of the page, scholars have not uniformely agreed on the qualifications listed for a country to be considered a "democracy". I don't want to abruptly change it and accidentally make it more confusing, but one must consider who is defining democracy. Also, the "Factors affecting democratization" needs clarification and a few additions--for example, the "resource curse". In traditional Political Science terminology, one cites three factors that affect democratization and democracy: structural, institutional, and cultural. All factors listed in this page fall within one of these three categories. One final suggestion--it might be more effective to cite a few examples of countries undergoing movements towards democracy and explain them, instead of listing links to about 20 random movements. For example, the case of Senegal could be explained, how a non-western definition of demokaraasi can ultimately lead to democracy in the western sense of the word, including peaceful alternations of power via elections. Just my two cents... I'm willing to make these changes on the page gradually, but I didn't want to do anything too rash and have it misunderstood and then deleted. -Jessi Schoner

Contents 1 "Anarchization" 2 Homogenous population 3 Broader definition please 4 "Western" idea 5 Revert

[edit] "Anarchization"

"For example, a very extreme democratization that delegates decision to very small units without any central control is sometimes referred to as anarchization." Is there any source for that term actually existing? Or any historical example? Somalia is/was often seen as an anarchy, but I do not understand how this relates to democracy.Ultramarine 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Somalia is only 'anarchic' if you restrict your understanding of authority to Westphalian states. The clan system continued to exist after the fall of Barre and continues to structure politics there to this day. Anarchization would have to involve a diminishing of structures of coercion, so that politics became increasingly a matter of free association. In that sense, Western Europe might be a better place to look for it.--86.134.234.199 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homogenous population

Removed the claim that a country cannot develop a stable democracy without a homogenous population - Canada, the United States, Belgium, Switzerland, India and Australia prove this claim absolutely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.164.73.25 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

In Belgium there is currently conflict between the Waloon and Flemish regions over the formation of a new national government - it has even been suggested that Belgium could cease to exist.

There remains a strong independence movement in Quebec - very much based on French language and culture.

In Switzerland, there were several wars over which culture would be dominant - the biggest example of this was the Sunderbund War. Arguably the German Protestant tendency won and has dominated ever since - as shown by the emergence of Bern, Zurich and Basle as the real centres of power in the republic. Also, in many cases the individual Swiss Cantons have very homogenous populations, and it is only when the nation is considered as a whole it appears heterogenous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.11 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broader definition please

Just passing through here, but I notice how limited the current opening definition is, and it isn't helped by the in other contexts section either. The opening should include a definition of the process, regardless of its major use in discussing governmental structures. Any institution, movement or group of any kind may be involved in a process of democratization--the arts, sciences, civil society, culture more widely, etc. I've linked here from a discussion of movements around the 1900s that involved the democratization of theatre, as audiences become broader and characters represented move from aristocrats to bourgeois to working-class. It's not my field here, but if anyone's actively monitoring the page, please have a go at a broader opening. Thanks, DionysosProteus 10:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Western" idea

Have removed Brazil from the non-western examples of democracies as Brazil is very much a western country. Latin America for goodness sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.11 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I did not remove any sourced material, see edit summaries. The claim regarding the UK is simply false, the democratization process was extremely slow. If no objections, I will restore the corrections.Ultramarine 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed the sentence with the UK example to a correct version ("consolidated" instead of "quickly consolidated"). But I do not understand why you removed the history section, describing three democratization waves. That section includes citations. Would you prefer renaming it to "Waves of democratization"? Or you have more substantial objections to the history section? Tankred 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the history section. I think that the "Effects of democratization" section could be eliminated, there are certainly many effects of democracy and democratization, covered in for example liberal democracy article, so need to mention only the effect on civil wars here. Thoughts? Ultramarine 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the "Effects of democratization" section is to discuss the effects of democratization on political stability in general and organized violence in particular. According to many empirical studies, democratization from authoritarian regimes to partial democracies brings more instability, while democratization from a partial to a full democracy decreases the likelihood of violent conflict. But you are right that this section is not very clear and it is much shorter than other sections of the article. I would prefer to expand it instead of deleting it, but, as I do not have much time to work on it right now, I would not insist on retaining it in its present form. If you have time and inclination, you are more than welcome to expand and copyedit this section, though. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to do it. Tankred 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)