Political Studies Review

The set of works reviewed here suggest that the problems inherent in post-Cold War democracy promotion cannot be explained solely by policy failures. Attempts to push for democracy have been met with resistance, whether in response to the imposition of democracy or to ‘softer’ approaches. Collectively, the research in these volumes suggests that if democratization efforts are to succeed, those who hope to promote them must be more reflective about their own role in the process and cognizant of the fact that democracy promotion efforts are subject to political forces at the domestic, global and intermestic levels.

This review article explores the connection between two key terms in the current international development agenda, namely democratisation and state building. It does so not by looking at the establishment of well-functioning states as a necessary condition for the introduction of democracy, but rather by examining the idea that democratisation may itself play a role in favouring the consolidation of the state. Despite a recent debate on whether democracy or the state comes first, very few empirical studies have addressed the issue of the possible impact of democratic institutions and politics on state development. In the search for additional explanations and empirical evidence concerning this relationship, something more is to be learned as we turn to works that examine the effect of democratic reforms on more specific and partial dimensions, components or indicators of the state, such as violent conflict, corruption or taxation. The inclusion of the latter analyses, however, not only confirms that we still know very little about the democracy–state relationship, thus corroborating the need for new empirical research, but also highlights the conceptual and methodological flaws we must avoid when deciding what notions and measures of state and democracy are most appropriate in tackling this issue.

One recognises that political leadership still makes a difference. However, scholarship seems incapable of offering the proper tools to provide further and relevant understanding on the theme, particularly when we consider liberal democracy's current trends, namely its egalitarian ethos and the personalisation of politics. One of its key features, even in strongly controlled democracies, with tight systems of checks and balances, is the ascendancy of assertive leaders, to whom voters look when deciding on which party to vote for. Therefore, a dispassionate assessment of political leadership is needed in order to adjust our analysis: from the qualities of particular individuals, their intentions, perspectives and preferences, to the way leaders perform their role. This article intends to identify what is the specific nature and distinctiveness of contemporary political leadership, arguing that the nature of the task sets new problems in the political science literature and asks for new approaches.

Are the voters capable of making complex decisions and informed choices in referendums? Do referendums and other forms of direct democracy provide mechanisms for citizen deliberation? Why do dictators like Hitler and Pinochet use referendums? Are referendum campaigns ultimately decided by who has got the deepest pockets and the best campaign advisors? These are the questions discussed and investigated in the books under review. The conclusion that emerges is that voters are able to make informed choices which broadly reflect their political preferences and they are generally not swayed by spin and campaigns. In the light of these findings, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic as regards the deliberative potential of referendums.

For a movement that emerged to spotlight the crisis of liberal democracy, it did not take long for the Occupy Movement to find itself embroiled in its own democratic crisis. Occupy's story has exposed just how central or constitutive crises are to democracy. But is crisis such a deleterious thing? Though scholars of democracy have customarily given it a bad name, should we consider democracies to be in trouble when they are met with crisis, when they themselves create a crisis? According to the three volumes reviewed in this article, crises can have the potential to hamper and destroy democracies, but they can also possess the uncanny capacity to reinvigorate them. For scholars of democracy – whether they choose to define ‘democracy’ using a liberal, participatory, deliberative, or some other paradigm – it is perhaps this latter interpretation of crisis that may provide the best way to grapple with what comes next for democracy post-Occupy.

In 2013, Russia's economy entered a phase of stagnation, with a rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth much lower than that of other emerging economies. This article argues that economic stagnation is linked to the dysfunctional system of informal institutions that permeates every level of political decision making in the country. By discussing four recent books on the topic, the article shows the negative effect of Russia's informal institutions on economic development, as well as how their emergence and persistence is linked to the political system built by Vladimir Putin. The article then outlines different scenarios of institutional reform to show how Russia stands very much at a crossroads between different paths of political, economic and institutional development.

The article critically reviews the conceptual ideas of G. Bingham Powell's Elections as Instruments of Democracy and explores ways to develop them further. Powell's conceptual alternative to the Westminster model – the ‘proportional’ vision of democracy – comes in two variants, one focusing on proportional representation (PR) and the other on proportional legislative influence. If one focuses on the former, it is possible to distinguish four visions of parliamentary democracy based on the main stage at which majorities are formed. The four stages are: party, alliance, cabinet, and law formation. The corresponding normative visions can be placed on a conceptual continuum between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ majoritarianism. This article discusses the goals and trade-offs associated with them as well as their underlying institutional designs. It also re-emphasises Powell's insight that the congruence between policy makers and the median voter in a unidimensional policy space is a more appropriate normative standard for some visions of democracy than for others.