Democratization is a major political phenomenon of the age and has been the focus of a burgeoning political science literature. This book considers democratization across a range of disciplines, from anthropology and economics, to sociology, law and area studies. The construction of democratization as a unit of study reflects the intellectual standpoint of the inquirer. The book highlights the use of normative argument to legitimize the exercise of power. From the 1950s to the 1980s, economic success enabled the authoritarian governments of South Korea and Taiwan to achieve a large measure of popular support despite the absence of democracy. The book outlines what a feminist framework might be and analyses feminist engagements with the theory and practice of democratization. It also shows how historians have contributed to the understanding of the processes of democratization. International Political Economy (IPE) has always had the potential to cut across the levels-of-analysis distinction. A legal perspective on democratization is presented by focusing on a tightly linked set of issues straddling the border between political and judicial power as they have arisen. Classic and contemporary sociological approaches to understanding democracy and democratization are highlighted, with particular attention being accorded to the post-1989 period. The book displays particularities within a common concern for institutional structures and their performance, ranging over the representation of women, electoral systems and constitutions (in Africa) and presidentialism (in Latin America). Both Europe and North America present in their different ways a kind of bridge between domestic and international dimensions of democratization.
interaction. My empirical work highlights the use of normative argument to legitimize the exerciseofpower. The
focus on normative discourse highlights the realm of narrative practices, but to become meaningful these must be
situated – and studied empirically – within the concrete
matrices of social action. The demand for self-reflection
implies incessant interrogation of one’s own relationship
to the value-claims of the observed actors. Although no
transcendental authority is claimed for this version of anthropology, it reflects concerns common to the
border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? By illustrating relations
of deference, plumbing episodes of controversy, and highlighting the quiet
‘work’ of various kinds involved in sustaining and expanding cooperation
in the Arctic, I hope to show how dynamic and layered with power relations
Arctic cooperation itself is. Acknowledging the exerciseofpower without
positing the existence of open conflict allows us to consider how Arctic
cooperation is constantly shored up through various kinds of context-
. Social gradations were recognised
in all contemporary writings, not only most obviously by late twelfthcentury writers such as Andreas Capellanus and Étienne de Fougères,
but also in charters through hierarchically organised witness lists, and
in the Rotuli de Dominabus. Social gradations based on rank mattered.
They defined and underpinned the exerciseofpower.8 Noblewomen
were also defined by their marital status. Such a project must take account
of the complexities of gender and lordship in defining social gradations.
The debate over lordship, the way that women
/ward-level planning) and
preparing panchayat budget.
• Roles and responsibility in the exerciseofpower to participate and articulate
effectively their concerns and priorities in the meetings of gram sabha and
The facilitators were well rooted in the issues relating to SC leadership. By using
participatory learning methods, they facilitated the learner group to understand
their roles as people’s representatives. Training methodology was a mix of participatory learning and action methods such
exerciseofpower that define the state. The history of colonialism has further compounded this dynamic. It is here that the pseudo-choice of human rights as either a matter of abstract universalism or of relativism (neatly identified with the contours of the state) is claimed to be definitive.
Thus to step aside from the effort to ground once and for all an orientation towards non-injury, a respect for or even a cherishing of others in models of universality is to embrace neither relativism nor an ethical vacuum. The often rather parochial
balance. But there was always a suspicion that the trend would
tail off as soon as the party left office.
It can be argued, though, that since their landslide defeat in the May
1997 general election, the Conservatives have been more interesting even
than they were in the late 1980s, when it seemed that their hold on power
was unshakeable. Suddenly that ruthless, relentless election-winning machine
looked terribly vulnerable, and an organisation that thrives on the exerciseofpower seemed disorientated. The 1997 election produced the Conservatives’ heaviest defeat of
especially, in countries considered as exemplars for
new and emerging democracies. The development of strategies under the umbrella of legal technical assistance that
seek to enhance the standing of political decision-makers
while remaining compatible with the principle of judicial
oversight poses perhaps one of the most important challenges for democratization in the present century.
Countries in the process of devising new institutions
for a democratic political regime aiming to give enhanced
legitimacy to the exerciseofpower have much to learn from
the experience of
limitations of many Truth
Commissions is that they explicitly make telling the truth a substitute for any retribution. It is necessary to create public forums, including newsprint, radio and
television, where participants feel compelled to hear, to weigh and judge competing accounts, and ultimately to openly acknowledge the ambivalence and complicities in the exerciseofpower, and the power of truth and trust in social
relations. Listening, in this sense, as a necessary precondition to giving voice,
creates the possibility for departure, for a ‘sense of ending’, rupture
monopoly that PRIA has aspired to break for the
past three decades. The work began with two enduring partnerships: International
Council for Adult Education (ICAE) during the formative years in the 1980s, and
the Institute of Development Research (IDR) during the 1990s.
In post-industrial society, information, knowledge and knowledge production
are key sources of power, like capital. In a knowledged society, inequality results
when people with access to knowledge exert power over those having little or no
access to knowledge. This exerciseofpower perpetuates one group