The Cost of Terrorism: The Relationship Between International Terrorism and Democratic Governance

After Al Qaeda's destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, many democracies reacted to the event, and to international terrorism in general, by passing laws restricting civil liberties and political rights, raising questions about the balance between security and liberty. Such laws have produced alarms among civil libertarians, worldwide. Are the alarms justified? In this article we analyze the relationship between the yearly number of international terrorist attacks in 24 countries from 1968–2003 and (a) measures of civil liberties and political rights as provided by Freedom House, and (b) levels of democracy as measured in the Polity IV scales. We take the number of international terrorist events, by country, from data provided by the Memorial Institute of the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp. Our analysis indicates that there is, generally, no relationship between the number of international terrorist events and the levels of civil rights, political rights, or democracy as measured by the Freedom House and Polity IV indicators. When there is a statistically significant relationship, it is negative, opposite to what is predicted by the tradeoff hypothesis.     

Political Conflict over Time

We study a model of electoral competition in which politicians must decide whether to initiate the provision of some public good and, afterward, how much of the public good to supply. The model illuminates how a project's implementation affects elections and, conversely, how electoral considerations influence decisions about implementation. Under well-defined conditions, politicians will either implement projects that they do not like or delay projects that, absent electoral concerns, they would support. The model further reveals how the perceived benefits of holding office can impede the production of public goods about which there is broad consensus. And depending on facts about the program's structure and the electoral landscape, a policy's implementation can either mitigate or exacerbate political conflict.     

The Road to Uluru: Constitutional Recognition and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have campaigned for reform to the Australian state for generations. Over the last decade, debate over constitutional recognition has assumed mainstream prominence as a series of parliamentary and expert bodies designed to raise awareness of the need for change, propose options for that change, and build a community consensus around those proposals, have been established. This article assesses the five public processes undertaken between 2010 and 2017. It explains that constitutional reform has been hampered by state ambivalence towards the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). However, it argues that that same state ambivalence created space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to eventually take control of the debate, reframe it along their own priorities, and re-energise the movement for constitutional recognition. Even if prospects for a referendum remain uncertain, the Uluru Statement from the Heart has succeeded in building community consensus for a clear proposal because the UNDRIP informed and influenced its development.