Democracy in Bolivarian Venezuela in comparative perspective
polices, however, as Laclau and Mouffe suggest, may lead to forms of ‘totalitarianism’ which negate the ‘logic of democracy’ inherent in the widening of popular participation. 1
Chávez has been repeatedly accused of authoritarianism, principally by opposition leaders but also by many foreign supporters of the opposition and even amongst some on the left. In this chapter, we will examine more fully this dichotomy between democracy and authoritarianism in the Chávez government. Specifically we will seek to answer two key interrelated questions
This collection brings together work on forms of popular television produced within the authoritarian regimes of Europe after World War II. Ten chapters based on new and original research examine approaches to programming and individual programmes in Spain, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the Soviet Union and the GDR at a time when they were governed as dictatorships or one-party states. Rather than foregrounding the political economy of television or its role as an overt tool of state propaganda, the focus is on popular television-everyday programming that ordinary people watched. An editorial introduction examines the question of what can be considered ‘popular’ when audience appeal is often secondary to the need for state control. With familiar measures of popularity often absent, contributors adopt various approaches in applying the term to the programming they examine and in considering the reasons for its popularity. Drawing on surviving archives, scripts and production records, contemporary publications, YouTube clips, and interviews with producers and performers, its chapters recover examples of television programming history unknown beyond national borders and often preserved largely in the memories of the audiences who lived with them. Popular Television in Authoritarian Europe represents a significant intervention in transnational television studies, making these histories available to scholars for the first time, encouraging comparative enquiry and extending the reach – intellectually and geographically – of European television history.
In the first part of his 1991 book, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century , Samuel Huntington asks the question, ‘What changes in plausible independent variables in most probably the 1960s and 1970s produced the dependent variable, democratizing regime changes in the 1970s and 1980s?’ In response he suggests that there were essentially five key changes: the deepening legitimacy problems of authoritarian regimes, the unprecedented global economic growth of the 1960s which greatly expanded the middle class, changes
Chinese finance and the future
of authoritarian capitalism
The jury is very much out on how epiphenomenal the West’s post1800 advantage will be.
Kenneth Pomeranz (2009)
Reevaluating China’s financial development in historical comparative context challenges existing ways of thinking about the
dynamics of global order and China’s place within it. This global
order is in a deep state of flux and uncertainty, yet our posing of
questions surrounding the fate of the liberal world order occlude
the possibility that China is constructing its own version of capitalist
Radical isomorphism and the
anti-authoritarian diffusion of
Once you begin to look at human society from an anarchist point of
view you discover that the alternatives are already there, in the interstices
of the dominant power structure. If you want to build a free society, the
parts are all at hand. (Colin Ward)
Nothing better than a good idea
Anarchists are commonly depicted as selfish iconoclasts who could not
cooperate with others even if their lives depended on it. Owing to this
perception, the idea of an anarchist movement, which
The emergence of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela has revived analysis of one of Latin America's most enduring political traditions: populism. Yet Latin America has changed since the heyday of Perón and Evita. Globalisation, implemented through harsh IMF-inspired Structural Adjustment Programmes, has taken hold throughout the region, and democracy is supposedly the ‘only game in town’. This book examines the phenomenon that is Chávez within these contexts, assessing to what extent his government fits into established ideas on populism in Latin America. It also provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of Chávez's emergence, his government's social and economic policies, its foreign policy, as well as assessing the charges of authoritarianism brought against him. The book carries debate beyond current polarised views on the Venezuelan president, to consider the prospects of the new Bolivarian model surviving beyond its leader and progenitor, Chávez.
posited that authoritarian regimes can pass the costs of coping with sanctions impacts on to their people ( Haggard and Noland, 2017 : 6), which informs Pyongyang’s ability to endure sanctions through repression for average citizens and rewards for the elite ( Peksen, 2016 ).
Past research has considered sanctions against the DPRK from a number of perspectives, including political economy ( Frank, 2006 ; Haggard and Noland, 2010 ), international trade ( Noland, 2009 ), economic statecraft ( Haggard and Noland, 2017 ), US policy ( Stanton et al. , 2017 ) and
The first thing to say about liberal order is that it hasn’t been that liberal. Since
the Second World War, the production of subjects obeisant to the rule of liberal institutions
has depended on illiberal and authoritarian methods – not least on the periphery of the
world system, where conversion to Western reason has been pursued with particularly millenarian
zeal, and violence. The wishful idea of an ever more open and global market economy has been
continuously undermined by its champions, with their subsidies
The present government takes care of such a Truth-with-a-Capital-T . Important in that regard is the fact that the genocide ended by a military overthrow of the former regime by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The alternation of power was not the result of compromise or internal reform. Therefore, the RPF managed to assert its dominance in the post-genocide era and the regime brought about is authoritarian in nature and (perceived as) being Tutsi-dominated, considering its origin. It is an influence that is increasingly dispersed throughout society
This book shows the impact of twenty-first-century security concerns on the way Russia is ruled. It demonstrates how President Vladimir Putin has wrestled with terrorism, immigration, media freedom, religious pluralism, and economic globalism, and argues that fears of a return to old-style authoritarianism oversimplify the complex context of contemporary Russia. Since the early 1990s, Russia has been repeatedly analysed in terms of whether it is becoming a democracy or not. This book instead focuses on the internal security issues common to many states in the early twenty-first century, and places them in the particular context of Russia, the world's largest country, still dealing with its legacy of communism and authoritarianism. Detailed analysis of the place of security in Russia's political discourse and policy making reveals nuances often missing from overarching assessments of Russia today. To characterise the Putin regime as the ‘KGB-resurgent’ is to miss vital continuities, contexts, and on-going political conflicts that make up the contemporary Russian scene. The book draws together current debates about whether Russia is a ‘normal’ country developing its own democratic and market structures, or a nascent authoritarian regime returning to the past. Drawing on extensive interviews and Russian source material, it argues that the growing security factor in Russia's domestic politics is neither ubiquitous nor unchallenged. It must be understood in the context of Russia's immediate history and the growing domestic security concerns of many states the world over.