Juan J. Linz

Democracy in developing countries : Latin America

This text reflects improvements in democratic trends and the erosion of democratic advances in different countries. It regards political actors and institutions, and is concerned about the impact on democratic consolidation of economic constraints, weak states, judicial inefficacy and inequality.

Democracy's Time Constraints

The present article explores a series of time issues that have been largely ignored in democratic theory. It begins with discussing a defining feature of democratic rule: its temporal delimitation. Democracy is government pro tempore. Parting from this core assumption, the article discusses, among other things temporal, the timing of elections; the time requirements of efficient and accountable government; the interaction of electoral cycles at different levels and their interference with other societal cycles; the democratic ambivalence of term limits; the time scarcities of both politicians and citizens; the temporal logics of direct democracy; the value of governmental stability; and the complexities of generational renewal. The article concludes with some reflections on some neglected themes and pending challenges.

State building and nation building

This essay discusses, from a historical and contemporary perspective, the processes of state and nation building. The difficulties of making every nation a state and every state a nation, and the fact that people live intermingled within the borders of states and have different and often dual identity leads to arguments for multi-national states, states which abandon the dream of becoming nation states and ‘nations’ willing to live in a multi-national democratic liberal state.

Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States

When Jeffrey Isaac approached us to review some recent works in American politics from a comparative perspective, we gladly accepted the task, believing it important to help overcome what some see as the “splendid isolation” of American politics. Indeed, the invitation arrived at a propitious time because, after completing our most recent book, we critically reflected on the fact that we had unfortunately written almost nothing on the oldest, and one of the most diverse, democracies in the world, the United States. We thus agreed to contribute some thoughts on the matter, recognizing the limits of our knowledge of the entire field of American politics, but acknowledging, too, our belief that the current distancing of the study of America from the analysis of other democracies impoverishes modern political science.

Transiciones a la democracia

Este articulo trata de los cambios de regimen que llevan a la democracia politica, ocupandose exclusivamente del establecimiento y la consolidacion de los regimenes democraticos que surgen de la transmision desde regimenes autoritarios. El centro de atencion son los regimenes no democraticos y no tradicionales y las caracteristicas politicas e institucionales relacionadas con su desaparicion, la probabilidad de las transiciones a la democracia y la consolidacion de regimenes competitivos.

The Rise of "State-Nations"

Must every state be a nation and every nation a state? Or should we look instead to the example of countries such as India, where one state holds together a congeries of “national” groups and cultures in a single and wisely conceived federal republic?

Bringing the Russian State Back in: Explanations of the Derailed Transition to Market Democracy@@@Kremlin Capitalism: Privatizing the Russian Economy@@@Democracy from Scratch@@@Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation@@@Russia's 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics

In June 1996, for the first time in thousand years, Russian citizens were given the chance to select their head of state in a democratic election. Michael McFaul analyzes three major factors that combine to explain why Boris Yeltsins victory, should have been expected, discusses the reasons behind Yeltsins victory, and examines its impact on electoral politics in post-Soviet Russia.

Non-Competitive Elections in Europe

For those who assume that elections are an opportunity for the citizen to express freely his preference for alternative leadership and programmes, the question tends to be, ‘Why elections at all when the rulers are unlikely to give up their power whatever the outcome?’1 Our assumption here is that if there are elections they must have some functions from the point of view of the leadership of the country, and some consequences for the political system, and the voters mut have some reason to participate in them. Any adequate analysis of elections would have to answer the following list of questions. (1) What functions do those elections have from the point of view of the rulers, both explicitly in their statements and implicitly in their minds? (2) What consequences do such elections actually have for the political system, whether intended or unintended, functional or dysfunctional? (3) What motivates voters to participate in non-competitive and semicompetitive elections and plebiscites? Their motivations may or may not be in accord with the reasons why the rulers require their participation. (4) What consequences does participation have for voters independently of their intent? (5) What is the significance of the electoral process for the candidates in non-competitive and semi-competitive elections?

THE ROLE OF INTERIM GOVERNMENTS

Yossi Shain, who teaches political science at Tel Aviv University, is currently an International Fulbright Scholar at Yale University. He is the author of The Frontier of Loyalty: Political Exiles in the Age of the Nation-State (1989), and the editor of Governments-in-Exile in Contemporary World Politics (1991). Juan J. Linz, Sterling Professor of Political and Social Science at Yale, is widely known for his writings on democratic transitions and breakdowns. This essay is drawn from a much longer and more amply documented paper presented by the authors at the 1991 convention of the American Political Science Association. In the last decade, transitions from authoritarian and posttotalitarian rule to democracy have become a leading topic among students of democracy. Scholars and activists alike have reflected on the decline of dictatorships, the various paths that democratic regime change can take, and the ways in which new democracies can be consolidated. Although many case studies and theoretical works deal with democratic transitions, relatively little attention has thus far been paid to the role of interim or provisional governments in the attainment of democratic rule. t This shortcoming needs to be remedied, for the character and actions of interim administrations can have profound consequences for the course and outcome of the transition process, the character of the new regime, and its future stability. Interim governments may affect 1) the constitutional framework and the nature of the future political system; 2) the degree of political openness in the future democracy, its respect for human rights, and its willingness to eradicate the vestiges of the old regime; 3) the nature of the economy (capitalist or socialist); 4) the role of certain key institutions, especially the armed forces, in the new society; and 5) the countrys future international posture and alliances. Yet all interim administrations lack a democratic mandate until free and contested elections are held and a popularly chosen government assumes power.

The Legacy of Franco and Democracy

Spain, in the middle 70’s, presents the unique situation of a fortyyear ruler being buried with all the honors and of the authoritarian regime he had created being dismantled by his successors to give room to a new democracy. The process has been called reforma pactada, negotiated reform, from the perspective of those in power and ruptura pactada, negotiated break, from that of the democratic opposition. The figure of Franco divided Spaniards bitterly, and shall continue to do so, although many are ready to consider the man and the regime that he founded history, and to think only of the future. The personalization of power and of the regime and its definition as irreplaceable indirectly has facilitated to many Spaniards to disidentify from the past and initiate the construction of democracy. Adolfo Suarez, who would be the prime minister leading the transformation, formulated it in June 1976 in these terms: “To think in 1976 that the transforming efficacy of the system would not have been capable of founding solid bases to accede to public freedoms is, your honors, to undervalue the gigantic work of that irreplaceable Spaniard to whom we will always owe homages of gratitude who was Francisco Franco. Our people who at the beginning of his government tasks asked simply for bread today ask for quality in consumption, and in the same manner than then asked for order to reconstruct, today its language is that of freedom.”