I am surprised that people reacted so strongly to my comment (both positively and negatively). The answer to my comment is not to list multiple area-studies articles. The answer is to consider whether the following is true or not:
1 The number of alternative political regimes has expanded significantly since 1990s whereas the number of economic regimes has shrunk.
2 But my *impression* is that most of new ways to organize political life are considered as "failed" or "fallen" democracies--while they may...
2 But my *impression* is that most of new ways to organize political life are considered as "failed" or "fallen" democracies--while they may...
...be genuinely new durable types. It seems to me that e.g. the Iranian system with pre-vetted candidates and yet free elections is a system that cannot be just seen as "imperfect democracy".
Similar for royalist full-franchise w/o responsible govt like Jordan and Morocco.
Similar for royalist full-franchise w/o responsible govt like Jordan and Morocco.
Or Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Vietnam "political capitalism".
Or multi-party systems with one dominant (elected) party/president.
Whenever I read about China, the Arab Spring or Russia, they are all treated as somehow defective "fallen" regimes.
Or multi-party systems with one dominant (elected) party/president.
Whenever I read about China, the Arab Spring or Russia, they are all treated as somehow defective "fallen" regimes.
Whereas they may not be at all.
Thus, if we judge everything based on the *current* version of Western democracy, we shall see all systems as more or less imperfect versions of Denmark.
But this, I think, is wrong. They are alternative systems, not bad carbon-copies of Denmark.
Thus, if we judge everything based on the *current* version of Western democracy, we shall see all systems as more or less imperfect versions of Denmark.
But this, I think, is wrong. They are alternative systems, not bad carbon-copies of Denmark.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
