Conference ‘Is there a future for democracy?’ Radcliffe House, April 28-30, 2013
PaIS/ Centre for Studies in Democratization (CSD) at Warwick University, UK
This event is partly funded by CARP/ PaIS
Email: renske.doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk
Does democracy have a future? In his 1989 essay ‘The End of History?’, Fukuyama argued
that the advent of Western liberal democracy signals the end point of humanity’s evolution
and the final form of human government. More than twenty years later, scholars are more
pessimistic about the future of democracy. Today, many scholars stress that the ideal and
practice of democracy is in crisis. Is it time to talk about the ‘End of Democracy’, or does it
mean that we have to look for different forms of democratic governance? Is there a future for
democracy? Is there a future for research on democracy?
This event brings together five different panels on five different themes, but all focusing on
the same core question: Is there a future for democracy? These thematic strands draw from a
core of intellectual-conceptual debates with which scholars from Warwick (UK) and Bergen
(Norway) have engaged in recent years. This event clearly seeks to realise the potential of
collective research endeavours in PAIS. It has substantial involvement by several PAIS
academics, and intends to explore the potential for further collective research cooperation
between PAIS and Bergen academics.
Each panel sessions involve up to five panellists who give a short presentation (preferably
based on paper which will be sent to all participants) commenting on a specific topic or
challenge. Each panel will start with a brief presentation (not more than 15 minutes) from
each panellist on the submitted paper and/ or on the main topic. This will be followed by
feedback from the discussant, who will hopefully also give ideas about the links between the
papers and give suggestions for possible next steps for future research (not more than 15
minutes for all papers in one panel). Finally, there will be time for questions and comments
and suggestions from the audience (15 minutes).
1
Participants Bergen@Warwick (April 29-30, 2013)
1. Renske Doorenspleet (Warwick) – organizer, chair
renske.doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk
2. Michael Alvarez (Bergen)
Michael.Alvarez@isp.uib.no
3. Shaun Breslin (Warwick) - paper presenter
shaun.breslin@warwick.ac.uk
4. Peter Burnell (Warwick) - paper presenter
p.j.burnell@warwick.ac.uk
5. Ben Clift (Warwick) – paper presenter
b.m.clift@warwick.ac.uk
6. Peter Ferninand (Warwick) – paper presenter
peter.ferdinand@warwick.ac.uk
7. Tina Freyburg (Warwick) - paper presenter and discussant
tina.freyburg@eup.gess.ethz.ch
8. Siri Gloppen (Bergen) - paper presenter and discussant
siri.gloppen@cmi.no
9. Maria Koinova (Warwick) - paper presenter and discussant
m.koinova@warwick.ac.uk
10. Jonas Linde (Bergen) - paper presenter and chair
Jonas.Linde@isp.uib.no
11. Gabrielle Lynch (Warwick) - paper presenter
g.lynch@warwick.ac.uk
12. Ragnhild L. Muriaas (Bergen) - paper presenter
ragnhild.muriaas@isp.uib.no
13. John Parkinson (Warwick) - paper presenter
j.r.parkinson@warwick.ac.uk
14. Nicola Pratt (Warwick) - paper presenter
n.c.pratt@warwick.ac.uk
15. Lise Rakner (Bergen) - chair and paper presenter
Lise.Rakner@isp.uib.no
16. Lena Rethel (Warwick) – chair
L.Rethel@warwick.ac.uk
17. Lars Svåsand (Bergen) - paper presenter and discussant
Lars.Svasand@isp.uib.no
18. Hakan Sicakkan (Bergen) - paper presenter
Hakan.Sicakkan@isp.uib.no
19. Tim Sinclair (Warwick) discussant
Timothy.Sinclair@warwick.ac.uk
and
paper
presenter.
Other Warwick participants
20. Undala Alam (U.Z.Alam@warwick.ac.uk)
21. Mohammed Ali Bapir (bapir@me.com)
22. Francesca Refsum Jensenius (frj@berkeley.edu)
23. Mike Saward (m.j.saward)
2
Programme Bergen@Warwick (April 29-30, 2013)
Monday
9.00-9.30
coffee and welcome by Renske Doorenspleet
09.30-10.45
Panel 1: ‘Challenges to Democracy: general, the role of political parties
and social power’
chair: Renske Doorenspleet (Warwick)
discussant: Siri Gloppen (Bergen)
Papers:

John Parkinson (Warwick). ‘The Epistemic Challenge to Democracy’

Lars Svåsand (Bergen). ‘In Search of Commonalities of Political Parties
in New Democracies: The ambiguous role of political parties’

Nicola Pratt (Warwick). ‘Renewing Authoritarianism or Constructing
Deep Democracy in Egypt after 25 January Revolution?’
10.45-11.15 break coffee/tea/cookies
11.15-12.30
Panel 2: ‘Challenges to democracy: popular satisfaction and support for
democracy’
chair: Lise Rakner (Bergen)
discussant: Tina Freyburg (Warwick)
Papers:

Renske Doorenspleet (Warwick): ‘Dissatisfied Democrats: A Danger
for Democracy? Some preliminary findings from Africa’

Jonas Linde (Bergen) & Stefan Dahlberg (Gothenburg): ‘Dissatisfied
Democrats: A Matter of Representation or Performance?’

Peter Ferdinand (Warwick): ‘Internet: Power to the People? Internet
and the pressures for democratization in China and Russia’
3
12.30-2.00 PM
2.00-3.15
Lunch
Panel 3: ‘Challenges to democracy: peace and justice, conflict and courts
in election time’
chair: Lena Rethel (Warwick)
discussant: Lars Svasand (Bergen)
Papers:

Siri Gloppen (Bergen). ‘Courting Elections in Hybrid Regimes’

Gabrielle Lynch (Warwick). ‘Peace versus Justice? Kenya’s 2013
election’

Maria Koinova (Warwick). ‘Ethnonationalist Conflicts in Eastern
Europe: Varieties of Governance in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Kosovo’
3.15-3.45 break
3.45-4.45
Panel 4: ‘Challenges to democracy: (sub)national elections in Africa’
chair: John Parkinson (Warwick)
discussant: Maria Koinova (Warwick)
Papers:

Svein Erik Helle, Lise Rakner and Ingvild Aagedal Skage (Chr. Michelsen
Institute and Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen).
‘Electoral mobilization in Uganda and Zambia for the 2011 elections: The
interplay between opposition weakness, incumbent strength and the
urban/rural electoral divide’

Ragnhild L. Muriaas (Dept. of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen)
with Lovise Aalen, Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) Variation in Party
Mobilization through Decentralization in Africa: The Legacy of Regime
Transitions
4
4.45-5.00
some practical information for participants
5.00-6.00
break
6.00-7.30 PM
dinner for all participants
Tuesday
9.00-9.15
coffee/ tea/ cookies
9.15-10.45
Panel 5: ‘Challenges to democracy: the international dimension’
chair: Jonas Linde (Bergen)
discussant: Tim Sinclair (Warwick)
papers:
 Shaun Breslin (Warwick): ‘Popular aspiration in China: political
reform but no democracy’
 Ben Clift (Warwick). ‘The financial crisis and democracy in the
European Union’
 Hakan Sicakkan (Bergen). ‘The financial crisis and the
transformation of the trans-European civil society’
 Tina Freyburg (Warwick). ‘The Temporal Dimension of
International Democracy Promotion. A Time-centred Analysis
of European and American Democracy Assistance, 1989-2008’
 Peter Burnell (Warwick). ‘Democratisation in Middle East and
North Africa: International Perspectives Democracy Support’
10.45-11.00
quick break coffee/tea/cookies
11.00-12noon
Panel: The Future of Democracy & The Future of Research
Projects Bergen@Warwick - led by Renske Doorenspleet
12noon-1.30 PM: Lunch
5
Paper titles and abstract Bergen@Warwick (April 29-30, 2013)
1. Shaun Breslin (Warwick). Popular aspiration in China: political reform
but no democracy
2. Peter Burnell (Warwick). Democratisation in the Middle East and North
Africa: International Perspectives from Democracy Support
Abstract. This paper offers perspectives on the prospects for democratisation in the Middle
East North Africa (MENA) region in the light of political developments since 2010, with
particular reference to international democracy support. There are five main sections: first, an
introduction shares certain assumptions about democracy support’s general record; second,
threats and opportunities to democracy support arising from developments in the region; third,
democracy support’s response to those developments; and fourth, some challenges for
democracy support in the region and beyond. Throughout, discussion is contextualised within
the larger literature on democratisation. Final remarks lead to the conclusion that
developments in the region both present challenges that should be viewed as opportunities,
and offer opportunities that will be challenging to address, not just for democracy support in
the region and further afield but in terms of the guidance that democratisation studies have to
offer.
3. Ben Clift (Warwick). The financial crisis and democracy in the
European Union
4. Renske Doorenspleet (Warwick). Dissatisfied Democrats: A Danger for
Democracy? Some preliminary findings from Africa
Abstract. Worldwide, there is substantial popular support for the ideal of democracy but, on
the other hand, there is considerable dissatisfaction with democracy within democracies.
6
Democracies are inhabited by many so-called ‘dissatisfied democrats’: citizens who are strong
supporters of the democratic ideal, but are unhappy with the way democracy is working in
their country. It is not clear how to explain this phenomenon, but based on a review of the
existing literature, this paper distinguishes two different approaches: an optimistic and a
pessimistic one. Subsequently, this paper develops a typology in which dissatisfied people are
split into two distinct groups: the dissatisfied people who support democracy on the one hand
(the so-called ‘dissatisfied democrats’), and the dissatisfied people who do not support
democracy (the so-called ‘dissatisfied nondemocrats’). In my view, this distinction is crucial
as both groups are completely different, need different explanations, have different ideas
about the value of democracy. Can dissatisfied people be seen either as a democratic danger
or as a democratic defense? It is likely that the dissatisfied nondemocrats are a danger for
democracy, while the dissatisfied democrats are not. The first findings in this paper show that
dissatisfied democrats reject authoritarian alternatives and want to improve the existing
democratic system (e.g. by limited presidential power) while dissatisfied nondemocrats are
more open to try another political system, and move towards more authoritarian forms. This
paper will focus on eight African countries which could be classified as democracies in 2005
– Benin, Botswana, Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa – and it will
use the data of the Afrobarometer.
5. Peter Ferdinand (Warwick). Internet: Power to the People? Internet
and the pressures for democratization in China and Russia
6. Tina Freyburg (Warwick). The Temporal Dimension of International
Democracy Promotion. A Time-centered Analysis of European and USAmerican Democracy Assistance, 1989-2008
Abstract. Democracy assistance is commonly understood as aid specifically designed to foster
opening in a non-democratic country or to further a democratic transition in a country that has
experienced a democratic opening. That is, democracy assistance is aid meant to support
processes of democratization before and after pro-democratic regime change. In this paper I
systematically investigate the question of when – i.e. at what stage of the political transition
7
cycle - external actors begin to engage in explicit policies of democracy promotion. In
contrast to existing research, I thus focus on the temporal concentration of democracy
assistance rather than the strategies and instruments applied. Yet, the decision about the right
moment to intervene determines the choice of suitable tools of democracy promotion and
should inform any study of their effectiveness. I seek to answer this question based on a novel
method that finds patterns of regime-type change in data on the state of political liberalization
over a variable numbers of years. Based on this operationalization, I compare European and
US-American democracy assistance worldwide, from the end of the Cold War until today. I
do so by employing a data set that has both a cross-section and a time-series dimension.
Differences-in-differences estimation suggests a convergence of the approaches to democracy
assistance of the two major democracy promoters, with the United States becoming closer to
the EU’s focus on building-up democratic institutions rather than breaking-down authoritarian
regimes.
7. Siri Gloppen (Bergen). Courting Elections in Hybrid Regimes in Africa
Abstract. Multi-party elections are increasingly common, also in regimes that would on other
parameters be regarded as authoritarian, and are increasingly
seen as a strategy non-
democratic leaders use to stay in power. In many of these hybrid regimes or electoral
autocracies, courts are central during and after the election process, including as an arena for
the opposition to contest the election outcome and the fairness of the process itself. This
article asks what functions courts play in such contexts. Do they strengthen democratic
institutions and forces, or do they serve as means for appeasing the opposition and
legitimizing authoritarian regimes? The article proposes a framework for investigating short
and longer-term effects of court-involvement in electoral processes, paying attention to a
range of factors impacting on the potential and actual role of courts (legal system, culture and
framework;
judicial independence, capacity and supportive constituencies;
institutional
context and political balance of power). This is used to analyze material from authoritarian or
hybrid African regimes where courts have played a role in election processes (Angola;
Uganda; Zimbabwe and Zambia).
8. Jonas Linde (Bergen) & Stefan Dahlberg (Gothenburg). Dissatisfied
Democrats: A Matter of Representation or Performance
8
Abstract. The last decades’ research on political support has shown that the principles of
democracy enjoy broad popular support in all types of societies and political regimes. At the
same time, an increasing number of studies have testified to widespread discontent with the
performance of democratic political systems around the world. Important institutions such as
political parties and governments face decreasing levels of popular trust and traditional forms
of political participation, not least in established Western democracies. This pattern is also
evident when consulting individual-level data. Substantial shares of citizens harbour strong
support for democracy as the underlying principle of governance, while at the same time
being dissatisfied with the way democracy works in practice. In the literature, such
individuals are often referred to as “critical citizens” or “dissatisfied democrats”. This paper
sets out to empirically investigate this gap between the strong support for democratic
principles and the weaker support for the actual functioning of democratic governance, which
could be seen as a form of a democratic deficit. In this effort, we focus on two contrasting
theoretical perspectives. The first perspective argues that the reasons for the democratic
deficit are to be found on the input side of the political system, and that the solution lies in
improving the representative institutions in contemporary democracies. The contrasting
argument states that the sources of political support and legitimacy are to be found at the
output side of the political system, where the quality of government in terms of non-corrupt
and impartial institutions play the pivotal role. We also investigate the claim that political
support may be subject to different challenges in different types of countries, and that the
factors explaining political support and discontent in established democracies are different
from those that explain support and discontent in more recently democratised countries. In the
empirical analysis we test these contrasting theories by multilevel regression analysis, using
data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES).
9. Gabrielle Lynch (Warwick). Peace versus Justice? Kenya’s 2013 election
Electing the alliance of the accused: The significance of the International Criminal Court’s
intervention in Kenya’s 2013 election. On 9 April 2013, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto
of the Jubilee Alliance were sworn in as Kenya’s new President and Deputy President. Many
Kenyans question whether “Uhuruto” met the required threshold of 50% plus one vote to win
the presidential election in the first round, however, there is little doubt that they secured more
9
votes than any of their competitors including Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka of the
Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD). Uhuru and Ruto managed to achieve this
outcome despite the fact that both face charges of crimes against humanity at the International
Criminal Court (ICC) for their alleged involvement in the post-election violence of 2007/8.
This paper analyses the role of the ICC’s intervention in Kenya’s 2013 presidential election
and seeks to explain how the “alliance of the accused” managed to turn their troubles at the
ICC into an electoral advantage. It also highlights some of the challenges that this election
poses for democracy and international democracy promotion in the years to come.
10. Maria Koinova (Warwick). Ethnonationalist Conflicts in Eastern
Europe: Varieties of Governance in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Kosovo
This presentation, based on the book fortcoming with University of Pennsylvania Press in
May 2013 nvestigates why some Eastern European states transitioned to new forms of
governance with minimal violence while others broke into civil war. In this comparative
study, Maria Koinova applies historical institutionalism to conflict analysis, tracing
ethnonationalist violence in postcommunist states to a volatile, formative period between
1987 and 1992. In this era of instability, the incidents that brought majorities and minorities
into dispute had a profound impact and a cumulative effect, as did the interventions of
international agents and kin states. Whether the conflicts initially evolved in peaceful or
violent ways, the dynamics of their disputes became self-perpetuating and informally
institutionalized. Thus, external policies or interventions could affect only minimal change,
and the impact of international agents subsided over time. Regardless of the constitutions,
laws, and injunctions, majorities, minorities, international agents, and kin states continue to
act in accord with the logic of informally institutionalized conflict dynamics. Koinova
analyzes the development of those dynamics in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Kosovo, drawing
on theories of democratization, international intervention, and path-dependence as well as
interviews and extensive fieldwork. The result is a compelling account of the underlying
causal mechanisms of conflict perpetuation and change that will shed light on broader patterns
of ethnic violence.
11. Ragnhild L. Muriaas (Dept. of Comparative Politics, University of
Bergen) with Lovise Aalen, Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) Variation in
Party Mobilization through Decentralization in Africa: The Legacy of
Regime Transitions
Abstract: Democratic decentralisation has been widely promoted by multilateral and bilateral
aid agencies due to its assumed positive effect on democratization, development, and
security. Recent studies of decentralization in developing countries have however found that
most central governments would resist any effort to give power away even if it promotes the
10
above mentioned goals. By deploying a two paired comparison of governments with similar
regime transitional legacies, but different decentralization strategies in the post-transitional
era, we explore two interrelated questions. Why did governments use decentralization as a
strategy for state control in some countries and why did governments use decentralization to
mobilize support for their party in others? In both paired comparisons we find that the posttransitional governments with a clear break with the past and a dominant electoral position in
the new multiparty system (Ethiopia and South Africa) could use decentralization as a party
mobilization strategy. The post-transitional governments with no break or a less devastating
break with the past and a opposition with a regional stronghold (Angola and Malawi) could
use decentralization as a state control strategy. Consequently, it is rational for post-transitional
governments to 'give power away' through decentralization reforms if they can use
decentralization as an electoral machinery to weaken the old administrative local elite in
favour of new elected officials loyal to the government of the day.
12. John Parkinson (Warwick). The Epistemic Challenge to Democracy
13. Nicola Pratt (Warwick). Renewing Authoritarianism or Constructing
Deep Democracy in Egypt after 25 January Revolution?
This paper seeks to understand the challenges to the emergence of democratic governance in
the aftermath of the 25 January Revolution. What appears to have emerged in Egypt is a ‘grey
zone’ (Carothers, 2002) between democracy and authoritarianism. How is it that a mass
uprising, supported by a wide range of political, social and ideological forces, has ushered in a
new form of authoritarian rule? I begin by briefly critiquing mainstream political science
approaches to political transitions for their failure to consider the social relations of power
that underpin authoritarianism and democracy. I then highlight the significance of the
historical legacy of colonialism and anti-colonialism in the politics of constructing citizenship
in Egypt and its role in normalising authoritarianism. Subsequently, I examine the on-going
and incomplete 25 January Revolution in order to illustrate how historical legacies inform
current struggles within Egypt over the nature of Egyptian citizenship and the future of the
polity. The most significant contest revolves around not institutions or political party
programmes, but around conceptions of Egyptian identity and linked to that, discussions over
gender roles and relations, the position of minorities and Egypt’s relations with the West. The
Muslim Brotherhood’s capture of political institutions provides it with a strong platform from
which to promote its own worldview on these matters. However, civil society plays a key role
in countering this vision, promoting pluralism and cosmopolitanism and supporting human
rights.
11
14. Lise Rakner with Svein Erik Helle and Ingvild Aagedal Skage (Chr.
Michelsen Institute and Department of Comparative Politics, University
of Bergen.). Electoral mobilization in Uganda and Zambia for the 2011
elections: The interplay between opposition weakness, incumbent
strength and the urban/rural electoral divide
Abstract. In this paper we wish to analyze electoral mobilization in two electoral authoritarian
regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Both Uganda and Zambia held electoral contests in 2011
where the opposition parties and candidates where expected to mount a serious challenge to
the incumbent party and president. However, the elections resulted in a relatively peaceful
electoral turnover in Zambia, the election in Uganda strengthened the electoral mandate of the
ruling NRM-party and President Museveni, and at least indirectly led to social unrest in the
aftermath of the election. Through an analysis of electoral contests in the two countries, we
argue that the similarity between the two opposition movements means that the reasons for
the diverging outcomes cannot be explained on the basis of opposition mobilization, or the
nature of the regime in power, but as a result of interaction of these variables with that of the
urban/rural divide in voting. While Uganda has a largely rural population, Zambia has
historically been one of the more urbanized countries in the region. We argue that this
situation made it easier for the NRM to use the’ authoritarian tools’ at its disposal to control
electoral mobilization, while the more even distribution of voters between the urban and rural
areas made it harder for the MMD-regime in Zambia to do the same.
15. Hakan Sicakkan (Bergen). The financial crisis and the transformation of
the trans-European civil society
Abstract. Europe’s current crisis has revealed the severity of the ideological clash between
federalists and autonomists. Despite important exceptions, current knowledge on European
integration is dominated by approaches that suggest a zero-sum game between the political
manoeuver room of EU institutions and member states: either transnational integration or
member state autonomy; either democracy or supranationalism. While these scholarly
approaches advocate one-fit-for-all solutions that are blind to the contextual consequences of
different European policies, European integration and financial crises have had divergent
impacts on different countries, regions, and actors. Building on earlier approaches aiming to
transcend this zero-sum game, this paper will look both beyond the above-mentioned
12
dichotomies and into the grey zones between their “either” and “or” components, in order to
assess the possible role of the European civil society in bringing about middle-way solutions
that combine the aims of both autonomy and integration.
16. Lars Svåsand (Bergen). In Search of Commonalities of Political Parties
in New Democracies: The ambiguous role of political parties.
Abstract. In this paper I discuss some key issues in the relationship between political parties
and democracy. The point of departure is what we can call standard models of political parties
and their role in democracies and the problem with applying these perspectives to the study of
parties in newer democracies. I address three issues where the understanding of political
parties in new democracies may deviate from the understanding of parties in established
democracies: The first issue concerns the widely held view that political parties are necessary
institutions in democracies. What does this mean and to what extent is this view of parties
applicable to new democracies? Second, how relevant are the understanding of parties as
organisations, based on the study of established democracies, for analysing parties in new
democracies? Thirdly, to what extent are parties in new democracies performing the functions
usually ascribed to parties in established democracies?
13
Session format Bergen@Warwick (April 29-30, 2013)
The panel sessions involve up to five panellists who give a short presentation (preferably
based on paper which will be sent to all participants – one week before we will meet)
commenting on a specific topic or challenge.
Each panel will start with a brief presentation (not more than 15 minutes) from each panellist
on the submitted paper and/ or on the main topic. This will be followed by feedback from the
discussant, who will hopefully also give ideas about the links between the papers and give
suggestions for possible next steps for future research (not more than 15 minutes for all papers
in one panel). Finally, there will be time for questions and comments and suggestions from
the audience (15 minutes).
14