|
Abstract:
There is already agreement that countries do not emerge in straightforward transitions from authoritarian rule to multi-party democracy. Yet, we find less consensus on how and why democratic institutions, practices and values become entrenched and accepted. This owes much to the fact that two approaches broadly frame the analysis of democratization, namely structural and actor-centric. Each approach carries with it different assumptions about the dynamics of regime change. As a result, scholarly interpretations reflect a tension between how we frame democratization and the conclusions we arrive at. This makes it increasingly difficult to grasp the ambiguous institutional outcomes of recent advances. The following article addresses the challenge of relating ambiguity to the study of democratization. Firstly, rather than neglect the key insights on transition and consolidation provided by the two above approaches, this article offers a complimentary critique of them. Suitably equipped with directions from the extant literature, it proceeds to outline a conceptual framework for mapping ambiguous post-authoritarian settlements.
|
