This book studies how a modern monarchy transformed Bhutan into a parliamentary democracy. A political ethnography, it focuses on the historic elections of 2007–2008, and studies democracy and its transformational processes from the ground up. It draws on historical as well as contemporary theories about kingship and regime change to analyse Bhutan’s nascent democratic process and reflect on the direction of political change, both at the state and local levels in the aftermath of the elections. It also presents insights into the electoral and political process by giving a first-hand account of the author’s own participation in the elections and ponders on the larger political implications of this election for the region. A strong theoretical discussion situated in robust fieldwork and personal experience, this book will be an essential read for scholars and researchers of politics, especially comparative politics and political institutions, South Asian and Himalayan Studies, political sociology and social anthropology.

The book puts into plain words a changing dimension of politics in a traditional regime and offers an insight into the emerging transition to royal, semi-authoritarian democracy in Bhutan. Bhutan represents a political system which coalesces the rhetorical acquiescence of democracy with illiberal authoritarian attributes under the former royalist shadow. Royal democracy is a myth and only paints the frontage of democracy. The smokescreen of this kind of authoritarian regime is not yet democracy but is instead a new form of semi-authoritarian rule. The political reforms in Bhutan were orchestrated by the “traditional regime and elites in a traditional society” as a tightly controlled, top-down process without devolution of power outside the regime. Royal Democracy can best be understood as an attempt to construct a political regime that impersonates democratic institutions but works outside the logic of political representation and seeks to repress any vestige of genuine political pluralism. Exploring the authoritarian logic behind the democratic rhetoric is especially important for Bhutan, which is today glorified by the UN as “The Mecca of Gross National Happiness” and depicted by many as a model of top down democracy on popular media and in academia. Holding State controlled elections alone does not create a cure for deeper political, economic, and social predicaments besetting Bhutan and does not create a solid foundation for democratic transition. The glitter of royal, semi-authoritarian democracy is a “Jigmecracy,” an old Jigme’s system with new labels, a classic case of transition from a traditional regime in a traditional society.

Bhutan is the only mixed-market, democratic nation in the world founded on Buddhist principles and values, rather than Western-liberal ones. This book explains Bhutan's unique model of democracy and economic development, its philosophical foundations and its practical relevance as an alternative approach to today's political and economic challenges.

In 1998, Indonesia's military government collapsed, creating a crisis that many believed would derail its democratic transition. Yet the world's most populous Muslim country continues to receive high marks from democracy-ranking organizations. In this volume, political scientists, religious scholars, legal theorists, and anthropologists examine Indonesia's transition compared to Chile, Spain, India, and potentially Tunisia, and democratic failures in Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Iran. Chapters explore religion and politics and Muslims' support for democracy before change.

In 2008, Bhutan triumphantly took the stage as the world’s youngest democracy. But despite its growing prominence—and rising scholarly interest in the country—Bhutan remains one of the least studied, and least well-known places on the planet. Karma Phuntsho’s The History of Bhutan is the first book to offer a comprehensive history of Bhutan in English. Along with a detailed social and political analysis, it offers substantive discussions of Bhutan’s geography and culture; the result is the clearest, richest account of this nation and its history ever published for general readers. A 2015 Choice Magazine Outstanding Academic Title Award Winner

Are the factors that initiate democratization the same as those that maintain a democracy already established? The scholarly and policy debates over this question have never been more urgent. In 1970, Dankwart A. Rustow's clairvoyant article "Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model" questioned the conflation of the primary causes and sustaining conditions of democracy and democratization. Now this collection of essays by distinguished scholars responds to and extends Rustow's classic work, Transitions to Democracy--which originated as a special issue of the journal Comparative Politics and contains three new articles written especially for this volume--represents much of the current state of the large and growing literature on democratization in American political science. The essays simultaneously illustrate the remarkable reach of Rustow's prescient article across the decades and reveal what the intervening years have taught us. In light of the enormous opportunities of the post-Cold War world for the promotion of democratic government in parts of the world once thought hopelessly lost of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, this timely collection constitutes and important contribution to the debates and efforts to promote the more open, responsive, and accountable government we associate with democracy.

This comparative study harks back to the revolutionary year of 1989 and asks two critical questions about the resulting reconfiguration of Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of communism: Why did Central and East European states display such divergent outcomes of their socio-political transitions? Why did three of those states—Poland, Bulgaria, and Russia—differ so starkly in terms of the pace and extent of their integration into Europe? Rumena Filipova argues that Poland’s, Bulgaria’s, and Russia’s dominating conceptions of national identity have principally shaped these countries’ foreign policy behavior after 1989. Such an explanation of these three nations’ diverging degrees of Europeanization stands in contrast to institutionalist-rationalist, interest-based accounts of democratic transition and international integration in post-communist Europe. She thereby makes a case for the need to include ideational factors into the study of International Relations and demonstrates that identities are not easily malleable and may not be as fluid as often assumed. She proposes a theoretical “middle-ground” argument that calls for “qualified post-positivism” as an integrated perspective that combines positivist and post-positivist orientations in the study of IR.