| Abstract: | Critics of donor‐funded democracy promotion claim that these programs are frequently designed to reproduce social and governmental models drawn from developed countries and imposed on the recipient country without regard to local conditions, with experts parachuted in to provide guidance based on international “best practices.” The critique focuses on first‐generation development with a neutral, technical focus, whereas democracy promotion has evolved toward a more politically engaged approach to programming—what we label as second‐generation and, more recently, third‐generation development practices. We apply this distinction to the area of legislative strengthening (LS) by describing its history from the post–World War II period to the present and provide examples of LS projects to support the argument. The challenge is to combine valuable insights from best practices from decades of experience while adapting them through political engagement with local partners and with bilateral donors. |
