Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon dramatically expanded the federal government's domestic security apparatus to cope with social unrest that rocked their administrations. By the mid-1970s, the Justice Department and Army maintained some 400 databanks containing nearly 200 million files on supposedly subversive individuals and organizations. Katherine Scott chronicles the subsequent public response to that government action: a determined citizens' movement to rein in the state. She details the efforts of a group of unheralded heroes who battled to reinvigorate judicial, legislative, and civic oversight of the executive branch in order to curtail and prevent future abuses by government agencies. Working closely with allies in Congress, they challenged state power, instituted open government policies, and protected individual privacy rights. Scott has assembled a cast of characters with compelling stories: Russ Wiggins of the Washington Post, who organized a citizens' campaign for government transparency; Representative John Moss, who called attention to government censorship; ACLU Director Aryeh Neier, who created a legal strategy for judicial oversight of executive branch security measures; Senator Sam Ervin, a civil libertarian who demanded greater oversight of the executive branch; and Morton Halperin, a former NSC staff member, who called attention to the gross constitutional violations of the nation's top security agencies. Rejecting the agendas and methods of both the radical left and the antigovernment right, these progressive reformers sought to bring the American state in line with democratic practice. When Army Captain Christopher Pyle blew the whistle on the U.S. Army's domestic surveillance program, reformers had evidence of illegal domestic spying that they had long suspected but could not confirm. Scott explores how his action united liberals and conservatives to end such abuses. She also assesses how Watergate prompted broad debate in the public sphere about the problems of executive power, the need for greater transparency in domestic security policy, and greater oversight of the activities of the FBI and CIA. These reformers' efforts bore fruit with the passage of a series of major legislative reforms, including the 1974 Freedom of Information Act revisions, the 1974 Privacy Act, the 1976 Government in Sunshine Act, and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now that government surveillance of citizens has returned to public consciousness in the wake of 9/11, Scott's stirring account reminds us that power still resides with the people.

Legislatures, the judiciary and civil society are important actors in representative democracies. In what ways and how well do they represent? And how effectively do they carry out their institutional and social roles? Both questions refer to the key dimensions of democracy analyzed in this book: representativeness and effectiveness, respectively. While they have been developed separately in scholarly work on institutions and regimes, there is little work considering them simultaneously, and on their interaction. Using quantitative and/or qualitative methods, contributions from top scholars in the field of legislatures, the judiciary and civil society examine these two concepts and their relationships in four Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Designed to guide the reader through the complexities of this debate, each expert engages in a larger set of theoretical debates about different approaches to representation in each sphere. In doing so, they debate how effectively these spheres carry out their roles in each country: whether a congress is institutionalized, its accountability, and its performance as a lawmaker; whether a judicial system is independent, carries out oversight, and protects citizen rights; and the role of civil society in a representative democracy. Representation and Effectiveness in Latin American Democracies is a timely and welcomed contribution to the to the growing debate about the quality of democracy in Latin America, and the developing world more generally.

Prepared statements and testimony by Carol Lee Hamrin, Quisha Ma, Karla W. Simon, and Nancy Yuan.

In Practicing Democracy, eleven historians challenge conventional narratives of democratization in the early United States, offering new perspectives on the period between the ratification of the Constitution and the outbreak of the Civil War. The essays in this collection address critical themes such as the origins, evolution, and disintegration of party competition, the relationship between political parties and popular participation, and the place that parties occupied within the wider world of United States politics. In recent years, historians of the early republic have demolished old assumptions about low rates of political participation and shallow popular partisanship in the age of Jefferson—raising the question of how, if at all, Jacksonian politics departed from earlier norms. This book reaffirms the significance of a transition in political practices during the 1820s and 1830s but casts the transformation in a new light. Whereas the traditional narrative is one of a party-driven democratic awakening, the contributors to this volume challenge the correlation of party with democracy. They both critique constricting definitions of legitimate democratic practices in the decades following the ratification of the Constitution and emphasize the proliferation of competing public voices in the buildup to the Civil War. Taken together, these essays offer a new way of thinking about American politics across the traditional dividing line of 1828 and suggest a novel approach to the long-standing question of what it meant to be part of "We the People." Contributors:Tyler Anbinder, George Washington University · Douglas Bradburn, Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington at Mount Vernon · John L. Brooke, The Ohio State University · Andrew Heath, University of Sheffield · Reeve Huston, Duke University · Johann N. Neem, Western Washington University · Kenneth Owen, University of Illinois, Springfield · Graham A. Peck, Saint Xavier University · Andrew W. Robertson, Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Lehman College, CUNY

Pundits and social observers have voiced alarm each year as fewer Americans involve themselves in voluntary groups that meet regularly. Thousands of nonprofit groups have been launched in recent times, but most are run by professionals who lobby Congress or deliver social services to clients. What will happen to U.S. democracy if participatory groups and social movements wither, while civic involvement becomes one more occupation rather than every citizen’s right and duty? In Diminished Democracy, Theda Skocpol shows that this decline in public involvement has not always been the case in this country—and how, by understanding the causes of this change, we might reverse it.