Regime Age and Terrorism: Are New Democracies Prone to Terrorism?

One of the earlier empirical studies of the relationship between regime type and terrorism published in International Interactions determined that while established democracies were significantly less likely to experience terrorist attacks than were nondemocratic countries, newly established democracies were highly vulnerable to terrorism. Subsequent empirical studies have routinely controlled for both regime type and age, but scholarly understanding of the effect of regime longevity on terrorism remains underdeveloped. This study revisits the relationship between terrorism and regime type and regime age using updated data, analytical techniques, and time-series and finds that while young democracies experience more terrorism than older democracies, dictatorships of any age experience less terrorism than any other type of regime.     

Democracy and civil war: A note on the democratic peace proposition

Democracies may not fight each other, but do they fight themselves? Despite the need to better understand internal wars, empirical investigations of the democratic peace have focused on international war between democracies. We test the effect of regime type on civil wars, a class of events that is widely overlooked in the study of conflict. We find that regime type strongly affects civil war participation.     

埃斯特拉达：菲律宾特色民主的产物与替罪羊

菲律宾被罢黜总统埃斯特拉达（以下称埃氏）是菲律宾历届当选总统中得票率最高的“民选”总统,曾被菲律宾人评价为继50年代马克赛赛总统之后最受群众欢迎的总统。然而,在执政后仅一年多便遭致来自各派势力的激烈反对,并成为亚洲第一位遭受弹劾的总统,最终在民变、政变、军变的压力下黯然交出了政权。埃氏作为民选总统,政治生涯在任期仅二年半期间发生了如此戏剧性的变化,其中缘由值得深思。本文试图从菲律宾特色民主为出发点,探索埃氏这位民选总统倒台的原因,并对菲律宾特色民主“EDSA第二次人民力量”的后遗问题进行一些初步的探讨。     

‘Big Men’ Rule: Presidential Power,Regime Type and Democracy in 30 African Countries

This article provides a systematic overview of the institutional basis of presidential power in 30 sub-Saharan African countries, using a broad comparative scheme to assess presidential power developed by Siaroff (2003). The dual purpose is, first, to compare the power of African presidents to patterns found by Siaroff for countries worldwide, looking particularly at the relation between regime type and presidential power; and second, to make a preliminary analysis of the political consequences of high levels of presidential power in the light of earlier theoretical claims associating it with regime problems such as democratic breakdown.

The article's comparative framework illustrates the high levels of institutional power of presidents in 30 African countries. As argued by Siaroff, regime type tells us little about presidential power; in these African cases, semi-presidential systems score even higher than presidential systems. One ‘parliamentary’ system also shows a high degree of presidential power. Moreover, there is very little difference in presidential power between democracies and non-democracies, and ‘minimal’ electoral democracies score higher on average than non-democracies and liberal democracies.

Examination of the consequences of high levels of presidential power also shows that more than a quarter (28.6 per cent) of such regimes experienced a democratic breakdown, although this is not a statistically significant level. A weak correlation is found between presidential power and freedom and democracy ratings, again not at a statistically significant level, while correlations with governance ratings are strong and statistically significant. A repeated measures test, however, does show a statistically significant relation with freedom and democracy. Although more research is needed, including a larger N and more variation in the independent variable, the evidence supports intuitive knowledge: a high degree of presidential power bodes ill for democracy and good governance in Africa.     

India as a democracy promoter? New Delhi's involvement in Nepal's return to democracy

According to the theory of ‘democratic peace’, India, as the largest democracy in the world and as South Asia's predominant regional power, should be expected to promote democracy in neighbouring countries. However, New Delhi lacks any kind of official democracy-promotion policy, and its past record on democracy promotion efforts in the region is mixed at best. Against this background, the article analyses the substantial role India has come to play in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005–2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi's traditional policy of non-interference in its neighbours' internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion. However, the analysis shows that India's involvement in Nepal was the product of short-term stability concerns rather than being an indicator of a long-term change in strategy with the intention of becoming an active player in international democracy promotion.     

Where to draw the line? From degree to dichotomy in measures of democracy

While there is much debate about the merits of dichotomous versus continuous measures of democracy, surprisingly little attention is paid to the question as to how to go from degree to dichotomy. This study identifies no less than 38 different ways in which Freedom House and Polity scores have been used to distinguish between democracies and non-democracies. The analysis shows that it is difficult to draw the line in measures of democracy, even for Freedom House and Polity themselves. These problems are illustrated with the help of a recent study on democratization in Africa. The conclusion formulates some guidelines for good practice and points at the potential of disaggregated scores to distinguish between democracy and dictatorship.