Search results

It is often said that we live in a time of crisis for social democracy. Many of the West European centre-left parties that seemed the natural parties of government in the second half of the twentieth century are in decline. The most common long-term explanations centre on a shrinking working class, a widening gap between the party elite and their core voters, and the challenges from new populist parties and/or greens. Short-term policy factors include the failure to address the recent financial and refugee crises. None of these factors carry much explanatory weight for developments in Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic in the three decades since the transition from communism. We find that much of the explanation for the rise and the fall of the five social democratic parties in these countries lies in the dynamics of party competition and party system change. All parties face dilemmas of policy, electoral appeal and coalition-building. The Central European cases suggest that it is how social democrats handle such challenges and make difficult choices about strategy and tactics that ultimately shapes their long-term fate. Centre-left parties are stronger masters of their fortunes than much of the literature on the decline of social democracy suggests. Consequently, seeking a common structural explanation for the rise and decline of social democratic parties might be a double fallacy: both empirically misleading and a poor base for policy advice.

In a globalised economy, the EU, being self-confident, could shape international standards by defending and promoting its own socioeconomic model. Social democratic parties rhetorically confess the need for a ‘European social model’, but meanings and ways to achieve it differ largely. In a comparative case study on the programmatic positioning of the German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Spanish Partido Socialista Obrero Español, the parties' perspectives on the integration mode and their handling of the Economic and Monetary Union framework and its crisis over the last decade are traced. Although similar paths from neoliberal convictions of the ‘third way’ to a positive integration process in a fiscal union setting are found, the scope and levels vary, illustrating the abilities of both parties to meet new transnational challenges. The crisis of the Eurozone was a definitive turning point for the positioning of the Social Democrats in Spain in favour of more political and fiscal integration. In contrast, their German comrades already advocated increased social integration of the EU since 2005 but remained very cautious regarding reforms of the economic framework established by the Eurozone.

This study aims to investigate the dynamics of democratic governance in South Africa and Ethiopia within the framework of Africa Agenda 2063 (AA2063), including how political polarisation and populism shape the democratisation process.

A mixed-methods approach integrates quantitative analysis using the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data set with qualitative case studies from South Africa and Ethiopia. Cohort analysis, comparative analysis and descriptive statistics revealed patterns and trends in democratic transformation, how groups evolve over time and the momentum needed for both countries to achieve the goals of AA2063.

This study found that the political landscapes of South Africa and Ethiopia are significantly shaped by the emergence of democracy, political polarisation and populist parties. Considering the 10-year expected outcomes outlined in AA2063, the findings show that South Africa achieved 84% of its 10-year democratic governance policy goals, whereas Ethiopia reached only 25%. South Africa, despite demonstrating a strong commitment to clean elections, has experienced significant political polarisation and the rise of populist movements. In Ethiopia, the shift towards one-man governance has significantly diverted the country’s trajectory from liberal democratic aspirations to undemocratic practices.

The findings provide actionable policy recommendations aimed at building resilient democracy against political polarisation and populism.

This study highlights the vital role of informed citizens in safeguarding democratic practices.

This study makes a significant contribution through a rigorous comparison of democratic practices in South Africa and Ethiopia by elucidating the critical factors that shape their differing levels of democratic maturity. The analysis uncovers the impact of political polarisation and populism on governance by employing a comprehensive array of democratic indicators to provide a nuanced understanding of these dynamics.

The Ukrainian conflict, a real-world case study, vividly illustrates the threat autocratic regimes pose to democratic systems on a global scale, symbolizing a battle between freedom and authoritarianism. It is a stark reminder of the destabilizing effects of the spread of autocracy. This trend has replaced the previous wave of global democratic expansion and puts international peace and ecological sustainability at risk. Through a meticulous and comprehensive examination of contemporary autocratic rise, this study presents compelling evidence that clarifies the harmful outcomes of democratic erosion in emerging autocracies and their negative influence on global peacekeeping efforts and environmental preservation initiatives. In essence, this research study underscores the complex interplay between conflict and harmony and the dynamics of autocratic proliferation and democratic decline, all of which collectively shape the landscape of global security and environmental sustainability initiatives.

This is a troubled age for democracy, but the nature of that trouble and why it is a problem for democracy is an open question, not easy to answer. Widespread wishing for responsible leaders who respect democratic norms and pursue policies to benefit people and protect the vulnerable don’t help much. The issue goes well beyond library contexts, but it is important that those in libraries think through our role in democracy as well. Micro-targeting library-centric problems won’t be effective and don’t address the key issue of this volume. The author can only address the future if we recover an understanding of the present by building up an understanding of actually-existing democracy: (1) the scope must be narrowed to accomplish the task; (2) the characteristics of the retreat from democracy should be established; (3) core working assumptions and values – what libraries are about in this context – must be established; (4) actually-existing democracy should then be characterized; (5) the role of libraries in actually-existing democracy is then explored; (6) the source and character of the threat that is driving the retreat from democracy and cutting away at the core of library assumptions and values is analyzed; (7) the chapter concludes by forming a basis of supporting libraries by unpacking their contribution to building and rebuilding democratic culture: libraries are simultaneously less and more important than is understood.

We argue that the information flow on Twitter is largely driven by elite communication with a top-down flow, while Facebook’s bottom-up flow is driven by mass public communication. Both are crucial news sources for democratic processes in Latin America. We explore how exposure to these flows affects opinions on democracy across 18 countries with varying democratic conditions.

Using mixed-effects models, our analysis draws on survey data from the 2018 Latinobarómetro paired with democracy measures from the 2018 Varieties of Democracy.

The results indicate that Facebook’s bottom-up communication correlates with negative perceptions of democracy, whereas Twitter’s top-down model correlates with more favorable views, especially among mass consumers. However, these differences are inconsistent across demographic factors.

Cross-sectional survey data limits causal claims. Longitudinal data could provide stronger insights into the mechanisms underlying the observed relationships.

Understanding how different platforms influence democratic attitudes can inform strategies for political communication and digital governance in Latin America. Policymakers should consider platform-specific interventions to promote democratic engagement.

This study adds to the limited research on platform differences in political public opinion, particularly in Latin America, and highlights the need to explore mechanisms of change across various social media platforms.