One of Latin America's leading sociologists, Manuel Antonio Garreton explores contemporary challenges to democratization in Latin America in this work originally published in Spanish in 1995. He pays particular attention to the example of Chile, analyzing the country's return to democracy and its hopes for continued prosperity following the 1973 coup that overthrew democratically elected president Salvador Allende. Garreton contends that the period of democratic crisis and authoritarian rule that characterized much of Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s was symptomatic of a larger breakdown in the way society and government worked. A new era emerged in Chile at the end of the twentieth century, Garreton argues--an era that partakes of the great changes afoot in the larger world. This edition updates Garreton's analysis of developments in Chile, considering the administration of current president Ricardo Lagos. The author concludes with an exploration of future prospects for democracy in Latin America.

Democracy does not end at the national level. State and local governments have the potential tobe enclaves of authoritarianism or bastions of democracy. In subnational authoritarian enclaves(SAEs), such as Oaxaca in Mexico, Bahia in Brazil, or the US south after the Civil War, incumbentsmaintain power over time using undemocratic tactics including fraud, institutional manipulation,corruption, and repression. This dissertation focuses on whether the active underminingof democratic values at the subnational level influences citizen support for and satisfaction withdemocracy. This topic has received surprisingly little attention given that voters experience theirpolitical regime first and foremost through the actions of subnational government. I argue thatsubnational authoritarianism has the potential to affect citizen opinions about democracy both directly,via learning and regime juxtaposition, and indirectly via its effect on state economic andpolitical performance. I test these various theoretical mechanisms using a mixed-methods researchdesign. I combine a large-N cross-national analysis with a comparative case study focusing on twocontrasting states in Brazil. For the large-N design, I develop an original cross-national measure ofsubnational authoritarianism for the states of 12 federal democracies from 1980 until today. I combinethis with data from the World Values Survey measuring citizen attitudes about democracy.For the comparative case study, I traveled to the state capitals of Rio Grande do Sul and Bahia,Brazil. I interviewed state party and government officials, journalists and NGO representatives inboth states. The results of this mixed-methods design suggest that subnational authoritarianismcan influence citizen opinions about democracy, but that the theoretical mechanisms connectingthe two are potentially more nuanced than initially proposed.

One of the biggest problems with modern democracy is that most of the public is usually ignorant of politics and government. Often, many people understand that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about politics. This may be rational, but it creates a nation of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. In Democracy and Political Ignorance, Ilya Somin mines the depths of ignorance in America and reveals the extent to which it is a major problem for democracy. Somin weighs various options for solving this problem, arguing that political ignorance is best mitigated and its effects lessened by decentralizing and limiting government. Somin provocatively argues that people make better decisions when they choose what to purchase in the market or which state or local government to live under, than when they vote at the ballot box, because they have stronger incentives to acquire relevant information and to use it wisely.

The first panoramic history of the Western world from the 1970s to the present day, Empire of Democracy is the story for those asking how we got to where we are. Half a century ago, at the height of the Cold War and amidst a world economic crisis, the Western democracies were forced to undergo a profound transformation. Against what some saw as a full-scale “crisis of democracy”— with race riots, anti-Vietnam marches and a wave of worker discontent sowing crisis from one nation to the next— a new political-economic order was devised and the postwar social contract was torn up and written anew. In this epic narrative of the events that have shaped our own times, Simon Reid-Henry shows how liberal democracy, and western history with it, was profoundly reimagined when the postwar Golden Age ended. As the institutions of liberal rule were reinvented, a new generation of politicians emerged: Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterrand, Kohl. The late twentieth century heyday they oversaw carried the Western democracies triumphantly to victory in the Cold War and into the economic boom of the 1990s. But equally it led them into the fiasco of Iraq, to the high drama of the financial crisis in 2007/8, and ultimately to the anti-liberal surge of our own times. The present crisis of liberalism enjoins us to revisit these as yet unscripted decades. The era we have all been living through is closing out, democracy is turning on its axis once again. As this panoramic history poignantly reminds us, the choices we make going forward require us first to come to terms with where we have been.

Incomplete Democracy: Political Democratization in Chile and Latin America

This collection presents a varied picture of the state of democracy in Asia, revealing unique findings from a project entitled the 'Asia Democracy Initiative' which explored the role of ordinary people in democratization through the rise of expressive social values in Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

This book articulates a participatory conception of deliberative democracy that takes the democratic ideal of self-government seriously. It aims to improve citizens' democratic control and vindicate the value of citizens' participation against conceptions that threaten to undermine it. The book critically analyzes deep pluralist, epistocratic, and lottocratic conceptions of democracy. Their defenders propose various institutional ''shortcuts'' to help solve problems of democratic governance such as overcoming disagreements, citizens' political ignorance, or poor-quality deliberation. However, all these shortcut proposals require citizens to blindly defer to actors over whose decisions they cannot exercise control. Implementing such proposals would therefore undermine democracy. Moreover, it seems naive to assume that a community can reach better outcomes 'faster' if it bypasses the beliefs and attitudes of its citizens. Unfortunately, there are no 'shortcuts' to make a community better than its members. The only road to better outcomes is the long, participatory road that is taken when citizens forge a collective will by changing one another's hearts and minds. However difficult the process of justifying political decisions to one another may be, skipping it cannot get us any closer to the democratic ideal. Starting from this conviction, the book defends a conception of democracy ''without shortcuts''. This conception sheds new light on long-standing debates about the proper scope of public reason, the role of religion in politics, and the democratic legitimacy of judicial review. It also proposes new ways to unleash the democratic potential of institutional innovations such as deliberative minipublics.