Comparative Politics, Democratization, Authoritarian Regimes, Regime Change, Concept Analysis, Measurement

This article compares and analyses foreign policies of Brazil and South Africa in the aftermath of the civil-military dictatorship and the apartheid regime, respectively. To this end, it sheds light on the debate on race and national formation in order to understand the relevance of the human rights issue for the construction of new foreign policy narratives. The renewal of the diplomatic credentials in a post-Cold War scenario fostered the signature of the main human rights treaties by both countries in the 1990s. In the 2000s, Brazil and South Africa played a key geopolitical role in the South, thus becoming more prominent in the global scenario. However, the current political and economic crisis reveals the limitations of these narratives and the institutional fragility of the democratization processes which underpin them.

A fresh monograph of an Austrian and American political scientist Prof. David F. J. Campbell "Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler" (Campbell 2019) is a comprehensive and conceptual summarizing theoretical and empirical study. The book is published within Palgrave Macmillan series "Studies in Democracy: Innovation and entrepreneurship for growth" and scrutinizes the meanings and tangible manifestations of democracy as a societal trend and mode of political, social and economics regimes in 160 countries worldwide (whether democratic or non-democratic ones) for the period of 2002-2016. The author interprets democracy as a continuum of social, political and economic modus vivendi and modus operandi of contemporary societies along various societal axes and suggests a theoretical matrix and a data-driven framework that allows consistent crosscountry as well as cross-regional comparisons. "Democracies", "semi-democracies" and "non-democracies" are thoroughly analysed in terms of their factual functionality in such areas as social equality, economic and political freedom, sustainability of development and self-organization. David Campbell comes to a conclusion that there exist and co-exist a magnitude of patterns of regimes with various degrees of democratic features and the related modes of securing societal, economic and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, concludes the author, the raising quality of life can be functionally secured also under conditions of "limited" democracy or in non-democratic regimes. At the same time, however, in the post-industrial mode of development, when knowledge becomes a main driver of growth and sustainability, only the countries with prevailing democratic trends along all societal axes would become true winners in the global competition. The latter is exemplified, inter alia, by 35 OECD member countries. David Campbell follows rather a positivist approach that assumes a fact-based investigation and systematic observations using the empirical data. However, a solid theoretical background was elaborated in order to construct a conceptual framework of the matrix for the subsequent and systematic empirical analysis. As a result of the profound and critical theory reviews, the sound empirical data mining and the modelling of a comprehensive analytical matrix, the book can be seen as an unprecedented compendium of up-to-date knowledge about the structural dynamics of modern polities. It provides a reader with clear methodological apparatus, reliable and verifiable data and a wide palette of possible interpretations of yielded data-driven outcomes. In the suggested model, the main components of any political regime that can be empirically measured are (1) the degrees of freedom, were one distinguishes economic and political freedoms; (2) social equality exemplified by income and gender (in-) equalities; (3) control by the government and of the government; (4) sustainability of development measured through the redesigned Human Development Index, Gini index, rate of CO 2 emissions and GDP per capita; (5) political self-organization of a society understood as government-opposition cycles (pp.40-41).

The present article summarizes existent literature on the 2010/2011 Uprisings in Tunisia with the aim of identifying the causes of the Tunisian Uprisings. By comparing the findings and arguments advanced by scholars, the possible explanations are outlined with the aim to encourage scientific debate. The article finds that in line with scholars working on democracy, explanations are various, reaching from attitudes towards the governments, economic elements, diversity of protesters or loss of control among others. The author argues that reasons for the 2010/2011 Uprisings and the final outcome were shaped by a number of individual circumstances at very specific moments.

This article was published by the now-defunct Cable magazine in Glasgow, March 2018.  Since the website has gone offline and the Wayback Machine does not have an archive of the web page, the posted manuscript was the final submitted pre-publication draft.

A nivel internacional, desde hace varios años se discute la gobernabilidad democrática de los sistemas de inteligencia, incluso en países con una larga estabilidad democrática. A raíz de los casos de Wikileaks, las denuncias por espionaje masivo de Snowden, la  reformada ley de inteligencia francesa y la injerencia rusa en las elecciones en Estados Unidos, se actualizó el debate clásico entre seguridad y libertad. En América Latina dicho debate es aun más acuciante, teniendo en cuenta que los organismos de inteligencia son considerados “enclaves autoritarios” que mantienen prácticas y culturas de trabajo que no se vieron modificadas sustancialmente como parte de los procesos de democratización general. En este contexto, el capítulo  plantea, en una primera sección, desde una perspectiva de nuevo institucionalismo, las falencias para democratizar el sector de inteligencia en América Latina. En una segunda sección, y sobre la base  del trabajo de Peter Gill (2016), se presenta la Matriz de Gobernabilidad Democrática de la Inteligencia (GDI) elaborada para evaluar el grado de democratización de los sistemas de inteligencia, adaptada al contexto latinoamericano. Allí se incluyen dimensiones que hacen al control político y a la supervisión (económica, externa y pública), los criterios de reclutamiento y entrenamiento del personal, y las normas y prácticas para la recolección de información de inteligencia. Por último, se aplica la matriz a los casos de Argentina y Perú para evaluar el grado de gobernabilidad democrática de sus organismos de inteligencia. A partir de la matriz GDI, se espera contribuir a la evaluación y la reforma de las agencias de inteligencia en la región.

This memo argues that despite the post-revolutionary turbulance any form of modern authoritarianism is hardly possible in Ukraine. Three groups of structural, institutional, and agency-based factors make the emergence of an authoritarian regime in Ukraine highly improbable.

The paper explores some complex aspects of political culture in Nicaragua that favor the emergence of authoritarian leadership. In the absence of the rule of law, authoritarianism undoubtedly deforms into tyranny. That is what happened to Daniel Ortega. Originally seen as a caudillo—that is a charismatic and authoritarian leader—who abandoned his Marxist origins and unexpectedly turned to conservative policies, Ortega is now perceived even, by former allies, as a dictator. The paper argues that, since 18 April 2018, very few people in Nicaragua and around the world doubt that Nicaragua has turned into a fully-fledged dictatorship. It also explains that that over the span of 11 years, the Ortega regime has demolished all democratic institutions including the judicial system, the electoral sytem, and even the national police. Finally, it presents a detailed account of several crimes againts humanity committted by the Ortega Regime and para-military groups, between April 18 and December 1st, 2018.

(Paper presented at SOAS University of London)

In the middle of this Venezuelan crisis, Lloyd Best's thought couldn't be more relevant than it is today.

In 1965, he wrote the seminal piece, “Independent Thought and Caribbean Freedom”, which became the foundation document for the New World Group.

Soon after Jamaican and Trinidad and Tobago’s independences, and after the break-up of the Federation of the West Indies, it announced our intellectual independence from the Cold War rivalries and ideologies.

With regard to the Venezuelan crisis today, we must not get used in superpower games. I am not a supporter of Maduro or his brand of socialism. Neither am I a supporter of clearly orchestrated, neocon regime change.

How removing a President by force is supposed to produce democracy still makes no sense, especially after Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, etc. We just need some stability there. Not to take sides in what is shaping up to be an externally aggravated civil war.

That is a mess that is not going to get sorted out soon. Whether Guaido and the US take over or not.

Published in the Sunday Guardian (Trinidad and Tobago) 17 February 2019, page A20

El proceso denominado "Primavera Árabe" catalizó en el Medio Oriente tensiones que se habían desarrollado a lo largo del último tercio del siglo XX y principios del XXI. A partir del 2011, los países del Magreb y Egipto experimentaron un amplio abanico de transformaciones. Se ha asistido a ambiciosos intentos de revolución y sus contrarrevoluciones; la intervención indirecta y directa extranjera (con resultados catastróficos); inestabilidad contenida por parte de los sectores más conservadores; un colonialismo perpetuado que se observa con mayor énfasis en el caso del Sahara Occidental; cambios en las relaciones internacionales producto de los nuevos gobiernos; refundación de Estados; y profundos debates dentro del islamismo ad intra cada uno de los países del Norte de África y en correlación con los sucesos simultáneos en aquellos del Mashriq. La ponencia se propone presentar de manera comparada los rasgos salientes de estos fenómenos para los países del Magreb (esto es, Mauritania, Marruecos-y su ocupación del Sahara Occidental-, Argelia, Túnez y Libia) y Egipto, identificando variables y actores claves para cada caso. Se abordará el estado general de la región antes del 2011 y hasta hoy en día, prestando atención a los procesos de corto, mediano y largo plazo que nos ayuden a conectar al Norte de África con otras regiones y realidades análogas. Así, esta propuesta aspira a analizar la compleja realidad contemporánea del Magreb y Egipto en el marco de los objetivos de la Mesa, entendiendo que a través de un enfoque interdisciplinario y sobre todo una perspectiva crítica puede enriquecerse la mirada con respecto a una región tan malinterpretada y estereotipada como el Medio Oriente.

This section aims at linking the analysis of public policies relative to the past and the political uses of history in countries that underwent a regime change. Dealing with the past is an important stake in every newly established regime that may consider the past both through continuities and breaks (Hodgking and Radstone 2003). By analysing public controversies triggered by these policies of the past, this panel seeks to contribute to the international scholarly debate on the (re)definition of democratic and authoritarian regimes and on the dynamics of political change.
In order to go beyond the typological problems raised by terms such as ‘illiberal democracy’ or ‘electoral authoritarianism’ (Schedler 2006; 2013; Börzel, 2015), the section will focus on the boundaries between different regime types and their repertoires of legitimation. It will shed light on regime change through the lens of the policies relative to the past.
These policies come in different kinds: transitional justice, construction or destruction of monuments, museums and other symbols of the past, opening or closing archives, rewriting national history, etc. (Gensburger, Lefranc, 2017). The public controversies triggered by these initiatives may reflect the power relations between majority and opposition (Bensussan & al, 2003) or lead to reconfigurations in institutional arenas (Neumayer, 2018). They may also favour the emergence of alternative memories and sometimes protest movements. The analysis of these controversies as well as of the implementation of policies related to the past (Behr, 2015) sheds light on how those in power seek to legitimate themselves and how they deal (or do not deal) with alternative narratives.
While there is a vast body of scholarly literature on confronting a ‘painful past’ (Mink, Neumayer, 2007), the historicity of European construction (Déloye, 2006), the Europeanization of memory (Gensburger, Lavabre, 2012) and strategic uses of memory as a resource (Mink, Bonnard, 2010), this panel goes beyond the European frame to take into account different contexts in countries that experienced a regime change or authoritarian periods.
While the ‘democratic backlash’ thesis draws on indicators pertaining to political representation and participation and classifies countries as ‘democratic’, ‘authoritarian’ or ‘hybrid’ (Diamond, 2002; Schedler, 2002), we ask how controversies over the past illuminate the relationship between those who govern and the citizens, how a political offer is established and negotiated, and how a sense of political community is fostered.
This panel is not limited to the analysis of professionals of politics; it is open to contributions on the engagement of memory entrepreneurs and representatives of professions (academics, journalists…) in the struggles under study, as well as of groups of citizens. This contextualised analysis should allow to refine general approaches on ‘transitions from authoritarian rule’, ‘transitions to democracy’ or the ‘democratic collapse’ (Tomini, 2017). By analysing the links between the policies of memory and the processes of democratisation or democratic decline, the panel brings a worthwhile contribution to the analysis of system transformations in their complexity.

Contributions are expected to address one or several of the three following themes:
- The evolution of public policies relative to memory linked to the configurations of political fields; the consequences of the opening/closing of archives; attempts to control the work of historians and journalists; how this relates with the dynamics of regime change.
- Controversies in the public sphere; confrontations between political schemes relative to the past and citizen initiatives (academics, associations of victims, memory entrepreneurs), international reactions to legislation on the past, etc.
- Dynamics of definition and redefinition of the past and the present. Legitimation strategies of rulers; struggles over the interpretation and meaning of a dictatorial past or regime change (references to a national narrative, founding fathers, religion, temporalities of democratisation).
The panel welcomes proposals (in English or French) that are empirically robust and grounded in theory, addressing both policies of the past and a regime change and based on single or multiple country case studies. We welcome contributions from various subfields of political science and ask the authors to specify the methodology and fieldwork realised. Abstracts in English or French (800 words max.) must be sent to both panel organisers.

Paper proposals must be sent to each of the panel’s conveners before December 12th 2018