Depleting democracies provides an analysis of the radical right’s interactions with mainstream parties and the effect they have on setting political agendas in sensitive areas such as minority policies and asylum regulations. It asks to what extent the radical right has changed the quality of democracy in Eastern Europe: does its electoral strength, its capacity for political blackmail and its coalition potential actually translate into impact? The book compares three groups of countries that are distinct in terms of the relevance of radical right parties: Bulgaria and Slovakia; Hungary, Poland and Romania; and the Czech Republic and Estonia. It follows a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of survey data with qualitative, comparative analysis of archival material and other texts to determine the causal role radical right parties play in influencing parties, policies and ultimately democratic quality in the seven countries. Depleting democracies advances theory on radical right actors in the political process and contributes to empirical research across the region. Its results are particularly relevant to the debate on democratic transformation and the effects of radical right parties.

Part lament, part provocative call-to-action, Democracy in Decline charts how democracy is being diluted and restricted in five of the world's oldest democracies - the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. James Allan targets four main, interconnected causes of decline - judicial activism, the transformation and growth of international law, the development of supranational organizations, and the presence of undemocratic elites. He presents a convincing argument that the same trends are occurring whether the country has a constitutional bill of rights (United States and Canada), a statutory bill of rights (the United Kingdom and New Zealand), or no bill of rights at all (Australia). Identifying tactics used by lawyers, judges, and international bureaucrats to deny that any decline has occurred, Allan looks ahead to further deterioration caused by attacks on free speech, intolerant worldviews, internationalization through treaties and conventions, and illegal immigration. Social and political decisions, Allan argues, must be based on counting every adult in a nation state as equal. An essential book for anyone concerned with majority rule and fairness in numbers, Democracy in Decline presents a clear, well-stated account of trends that have been undermining democracy over three decades.

Based on a leading scholar′s firsthand observations of legislatures as well as extensive interviews with legislators, legislative staff, and lobbyists, this important work describes and analyzes the contemporary state of legislatures and the legislative process in the fifty states. It explores the principal elements of legislatures, including the processes by which legislation is enacted, the impact of the media, political competition and partisanship, lobbyists and lobbying, the challenge of ethics, the role of leadership, and the linkage between legislators and their constituencies. Thematically, Alan Rosenthal argues that despite the popular perception that legislatures are autocratic, arbitrary, isolated, unresponsive, and up for sale, legislatures are, in fact, extraordinarily democratic and becoming more so. He concludes, furthermore, that the dangers to representative democracy today are substantial. The Decline of Representative Democracy builds on the growing literature in state politics and state legislatures. It also relies on the author′s participant-observer research, interviews conducted especially for this book, and his years in the field. Many illustrative examples help to clarify the theoretical points made throughout the book, which in turn provide provocative sources of debate for students of the legislative process.

The United States remains a deeply religious country and religion plays an inextricably critical role in American politics. Controversy over issues such as abortion is fueled by opposition in the Catholic Church and among conservative Protestants, candidates for the presidency are questioned about their religious beliefs, and the separation of church and state remains hotly contested. While the examination of religion's influence in politics has long been neglected, in the last decade the subject has finally garnered the attention it deserves. In Religion and Democracy in the United States, prominent scholars consider the ways Americans understand the relationship between their religious beliefs and the political arena. This collection, a work of the Task Force on Religion and American Democracy of the American Political Science Association, thoughtfully explores the effects of religion on democracy and contemporary partisan politics. Topics include how religious diversity affects American democracy, how religion is implicated in America's partisan battles, and how religion affects ideas about race, ethnicity, and gender. Surveying what we currently know about religion and American politics, the essays introduce and delve into the range of current issues for both specialists and nonspecialists. In addition to the editors, the contributors are Allison Calhoun-Brown, Rosa DeLauro, Bette Novit Evans, James Gibson, John Green, Frederick Harris, Amaney Jamal, Geoffrey Layman, David Leal, David Leege, Nancy Rosenblum, Kenneth Wald, and Clyde Wilcox.

"Structure and rules are, in fact, central to the answer. Workplace interactions are constrained by economic power and necessity, and often by legal regulation. They exist far from the civic ideal of free and equal citizens voluntarily associating for shared ends. Yet it is the very involuntariness of these interactions that helps to make the often-troubled project of racial integration comparatively successful at work. People can be forced to get along - not without friction, but often with surprising success.".

Why, since the 1980s, did populists rise across liberal democracies? And, given that they challenge democracies and the liberal international order (LIO) in radical but diverse ways, which variety of populism gains under which conditions? Rather than emphasising populists as a cause of the crises of liberal order, 'The People' vs. the Liberal International Order? argues that the historical empowerment of liberal international institutions itself gradually undermined democratic legitimacy perceptions among citizens and thereby boosted varieties of populism. Moving beyond theoretical accounts and bridging comparative politics and international relations, Koch presents comparative evidence from survey data, party manifestos, societal data, and international institutional power across 37 democracies between 1980 and 2019 and uses both statistical analyses and a comparative case study of eight states in the EU to support his claims. Accounting for existing economic, cultural, domestic political, and supply-side explanations, the author shows that normative evaluations relating to international institutions have contributed to gains for populist challengers across the spectrum in recent decades. Yet, the forces which push voters to populists and party competition itself together structurally benefit the populist radical right compared to populism's more inclusionary version on the radical left. Populism by itself, he argues, therefore seems unable to form a cosmopolitan democratic corrective in the new international politics of democratic legitimacy where alternative institutional trajectories now compete for citizen acceptance. Koch argues that for democrats and internationalists to still contain populist forces, rather than merely defending the LIO against 'barbarians at the gate', more self-critical reform enabling policy change and democratisation of liberal international institutions is needed to address the part of their success rooted in the democratic deficiencies of a globalised world.

This work argues that the problem of extinction can be traced to how we think about biodiversity and democratic societies. While biodiversity is usually confused with biological resources, Wood argues that it should be conceived as an essential environmental condition.