DOCSLIB.ORG

Group Dynamics in the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Group Dynamics in the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Group dynamics in the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Manon de Jongh ISBN: 978-1-56592-479-6 Design: Het is mooi werk, Cothen, the Netherlands Photograph on cover: Arthur Mebius Photography, Naarden, the Netherlands Print: Toptryk Grafisk, Gråsten, Denmark © 2013 Manon de Jongh. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. 2 Group dynamics in the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Groepsdynamiek in het Burgerforum Kiesstelsel (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 17 mei 2013 des middags te 12.45 uur door Manon Sabine de Jongh geboren op 18 augustus 1978 te Deventer 3 Promotor: Prof.dr. S.G.L. Schruijer Dit proefschrift werd (mede) mogelijk gemaakt met financiële steun van Maatschap voor Communicatie, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, en Udviklingskonsulenterne. 4 Foreword Today is the 25th of March, it is exactly seven years since I formally started this PhD project! And now, seven years later, my project has been approved and I am finishing the very last part of the thesis, the foreword. Coincidence? Maybe there is no such thing as coincidence... While reflecting on the past seven years, the first thing that comes to mind is the round of interviews that I held during the autumn of 2005. I was considering embarking on a PhD and felt that I needed to collect data about what it was like to write such ‘a thing’. I spoke to twenty people; some had finished their projects, some had stopped along the way, some had never started, and some were still working on them. One of the respondents warned me: “I feel the most important thing to say to you is that you should take care of your life; don’t lose it, while you’re busy finishing your PhD”. I have thought about this sentence again and again. It has probably been one of the most important things that was said to me in my professional life. And maybe this is the reason why, during the process, I actually could live my life. What have I gotten out of these seven years? Apart from the knowledge that I gained, I feel that writing this PhD has mostly been a personal development process. For how lucky can one be, spending seven years of one’s life reflecting, wondering, thinking, feeling, making mistakes, producing, not producing, being in chaos, not knowing, hoping, choosing, and fighting. During this development process, my professional and private lives changed – not coincidentally – and in no small measure. So, when I try to answer the question above, I wish to share that these seven years have brought me in contact with my true self. Many have supported me in this process, and I would like to thank them here. First, I would like to thank my sponsors for facilitating this project: Maatschap voor Communicatie, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Udviklingskonsulenterne, and Lone. Especially, I would like to thank the project secretary and the chair of the Citizens’ Assembly (deliberately referred to anonymously, see Section 5.4.3) and all the Assembly and staff members and external parties that helped me to fulfill this research. Without you, all this learning would literally have not been possible. A special note is addressed to the chair: thank you for your courage, collaboration, and trust. You supplied science in your professional and personal reflections and actions, which made it possible to explore the role of a facilitator in a more detailed way than one usually can. I am grateful for these contributions and the moments you wanted to share with me. Then, my supervisor Sandra Schruijer. Thank you for sharing all your knowledge, wisdom, and experience. Working with you has been very inspiring, meaningful, and instructive. Not always easy, but especially therefore challenging. Thank you for pushing me to think individually and critically, for giving me freedom, and last but not least for your good heart. 5 Furthermore, I wish to thank my clients and colleagues who supported me with knowledge and learning during the last seven years. Especially, Anders Trillingsgaard, Anne Tortzen, Dorthe Degnegaard, Eric Spaans, Frits Lintmeijer, Gemma van der Ploeg, Marcel Brosens, Michael Bo Nielsen, and Morten Fogsgaard. Jette Lindhard and Kenneth Albæk, thank you for managing me the way you did. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends. They probably suffered more than most from this project. Merel, thanks for listening so much to me, even though the B-word (Burgerforum) became taboo in the end. And Lone, you deserve a PhD in patience, acceptance, and trust: I could never have fulfilled your role. Manon de Jongh Århus, Denmark, March 2013. [email protected], +45 26554030 6 Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 13 1.1 The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (Het Burgerforum Kiesselsel) ............................... 13 1.2 Problem definition ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.3 Context of the study ..................................................................................................................... 17 1.4 Relevance and ambitions ............................................................................................................ 18 1.5 Outline of the thesis ..................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Democracy and the participation of citizens ................................. 21 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2 Democracy and its basic concepts .............................................................................................. 21 2.3 Types of democracy .................................................................................................................... 23 2.4 The role of citizens in a democracy ............................................................................................. 27 2.5 Dutch democracy: an emerging atmosphere of political distrust ................................................. 29 2.6 Deliberative democracy ............................................................................................................... 32 2.7 Citizen assemblies as instruments for deliberation ..................................................................... 35 Chapter 3: The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform ................................ 38 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 38 3.2 The task ....................................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Reasons and political background of the task ............................................................................. 39 3.4 Organization of the project .......................................................................................................... 40 3.4.1 Staffing.................................................................................................................................. 41 3.4.2 Assembly members .............................................................................................................. 43 3.4.3. Finance ................................................................................................................................ 45 3.4.4 Work method and philosophy ............................................................................................... 45 3.4.5 Weekend meetings ............................................................................................................... 47 3.4.5.1 Start-up and Learning phase (weekend meetings 1, 2, and 3) ..................................... 47 3.4.5.2 Consultation phase (weekend meetings 4, 5, and 6) .................................................... 48 3.4.5.3 Decision-making phase (weekend meetings 7, 8, 9, and 10) ....................................... 49 3.5 The proposal ................................................................................................................................ 51 3.6 What happened to the Assembly’s proposal? ............................................................................. 53 Chapter 4: Dynamics in large groups: relevant theoretical perspectives ..... 56 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 56 7 4.2 Group dynamics .......................................................................................................................... 57 4.2.1 Theoretical contributions ...................................................................................................... 57 4.2.1.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017
    St Comp Int Dev https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017 Jan Teorell1 & Michael Coppedge2 & Staffan Lindberg3 & Svend-Erik Skaaning 4 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper presents a new measure polyarchy for a global sample of 182 countries from 1900 to 2017 based on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data, deriving from an expert survey of more than 3000 country experts from around the world, with on average 5 experts rating each indicator. By measuring the five compo- nents of Elected Officials, Clean Elections, Associational Autonomy, Inclusive Citi- zenship, and Freedom of Expression and Alternative Sources of Information separately, we anchor this new index directly in Dahl’s(1971) extremely influential theoretical framework. The paper describes how the five polyarchy components were measured and provides the rationale for how to aggregate them to the polyarchy scale. We find Previous versions of this paper were presented at the APSA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, August 28- 31, 2014, at the Carlos III-Juan March Institute of Social Sciences, Madrid, November 28, 2014, and at the European University Institute, Fiesole, January 20, 2016. Any remaining omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018- 9268-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Jan Teorell [email protected] Michael Coppedge [email protected] Staffan Lindberg [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas 50
    yber C yberO rient, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, 2011 pp. 50-72 Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas Jens Kutscher Abstract: Publications on the Islamic shura concept – Arabic and English – usually include a com- parison with present-day liberal democracy. This paper addresses the issue of shura and democracy from the perspective of Muslim communities residing in non-Islamic countries. How do muftis in their online fatwas respond to questions whether Islam and democracy can be reconciled? How do they address the issue of shura? This paper argues that one might well expect the shura concept to serve as a justification for the reconciliation of Islam and democracy or at least find the shura concept to be a distinctly Islamic understanding of democracy. The online fatwas considered for this survey (from AskImam.org, IslamiCity. com, IslamOnline.net, and IslamQA.com) reveal a number of distinct understandings of shura, which are nevertheless linked with each other – be they elections as an expression of shura, shura as a constitutional principle and perfect form of government, or shura in cases of hardship or the political participation of women. While muftis from all websites are unanimous in their defense of shura, their conclusions regarding the centrality and impli- cations of this concept reflect the different streams of thought and currents they represent. Keywords: study of religion, democracy, legal science, Islam and civil society, Islam and politics, Is- lamic law, websites, fatwas Islam and Democracy in the 21st Century Whether “Islam” and “democracy” are actually compatible is an issue that has been raised for several decades now (McElroy 1938).
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Democracy This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATTERNS of DEMOCRACY
    Patterns of Democracy This page intentionally left blank PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries SECOND EDITION AREND LIJPHART First edition 1999. Second edition 2012. Copyright © 1999, 2012 by Arend Lijphart. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (US offi ce) or [email protected] (UK offi ce). Set in Melior type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries / Arend Lijphart. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-17202-7 (paperbound : alk. paper) 1. Democracy. 2. Comparative government. I. Title. JC421.L542 2012 320.3—dc23 2012000704 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Gisela and for our grandchildren, Connor, Aidan, Arel, Caio, Senta, and Dorian, in the hope that the twenty-fi rst century—their century—will yet become more
    [Show full text]
  • International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding
    The Unintended Consequences of Democracy Promotion: International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anna M. Meyerrose, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Co-Advisor Irfan Nooruddin, Co-Advisor Marcus Kurtz William Minozzi Sara Watson c Copyright by Anna M. Meyerrose 2019 Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations (IOs) have engaged in unprecedented levels of democracy promotion and are widely viewed as positive forces for democracy. However, this increased emphasis on democracy has more re- cently been accompanied by rampant illiberalism and a sharp rise in cases of demo- cratic backsliding in new democracies. What explains democratic backsliding in an age of unparalleled international support for democracy? Democratic backsliding oc- curs when elected officials weaken or erode democratic institutions and results in an illiberal or diminished form of democracy, rather than autocracy. This dissertation argues that IOs commonly associated with democracy promotion can support tran- sitions to democracy but unintentionally make democratic backsliding more likely in new democracies. Specifically, I identify three interrelated mechanisms linking IOs to democratic backsliding. These organizations neglect to support democratic insti- tutions other than executives and elections; they increase relative executive power; and they limit states’ domestic policy options via requirements for membership. Lim- ited policy options stunt the development of representative institutions and make it more difficult for leaders to govern. Unable to appeal to voters based on records of effective governance or policy alternatives, executives manipulate weak institutions to maintain power, thus increasing the likelihood of backsliding.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story Or Not Competitive Anymore?
    Page 6 | Trilogue Salzburg 2018 Background Paper Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story or not Competitive Anymore? Jörg Habich | Verena Nowotny | Christina Tillmann Introduction Taking stock of democracy seems to be easy. Democracy doubtlessly was the most successful idea of the 20th century, in spite of its flaws and problems. Democracy is able to adapt to changing environments and has been able to cope with challenges and problems in most cases. As a consequence, the number of democracies has increased and many countries have moved from a non-democratic government to a democratic one over the years. The number has risen from 69 in 1989/1990 to 125 electoral democracies in 2016.1 Nowadays, the majority of countries are governed by democratic regimes. Democratic systems are characterized by a variety of criteria, such as an electoral process and pluralism, political participation, civil liberties, the functioning of government, constraints on the power of the executive, and political culture with a guarantee of civil liberties. The victory of the liberal democracies as the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government as predicted by Fukuyama seemed theirs for the taking.2 1 Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2018 – Democracy in Crisis; https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/freedom-world-2018, retrieved July 16, 2018. 2 Francis Fukuyama. The end of history?. In: The National Interest. Summer 1989. Background Paper Trilogue Salzburg 2018 | Page 7 But the right to vote, political participation, freedom of press and media, and the rule of law are under pressure and in retreat globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Patterns of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe
    ANALYZING PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE By Karolína Púllová Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Associate Professor Matthijs Bogaards CEU eTD Collection Vienna, Austria (2021) Author’s Declaration I, the undersigned, Karolína Púllová, candidate for the MA degree in Political Science declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part of the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. Vienna, 01/06/2021 __________________________ Signature CEU eTD Collection ii Abstract Arend Lijphart’s typology of democratic systems, where he differentiates between majoritarian and consensus democracies, has been regarded as one of the most prominent and influential typologies of modern democratic systems. However, in recent decades its usefulness as a typology of democratic systems started to be questioned, as many scholars by replicating his work revealed that some of his core findings do not hold outside his sample of mature democracies. The present thesis tests the usefulness of Lijphart’s typology, firstly by analyzing institutional constellation in two of the newest democracies from the Central and Eastern European region – Croatia and Serbia, and, secondly by mapping more recent institutional changes and developments in the sample of ten Central and Eastern European democracies, which were previously analyzed by Andrew Roberts in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005 International IDEA publications are independent of specifi c national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: Publications Offi ce International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. Graphic design by: Magnus Alkmar Front cover illustrations by: Anoli Perera, Sri Lanka Printed by: Trydells Tryckeri AB, Sweden ISBN 91-85391-43-3 A number of individuals (and organizations) have contributed to the development of this book. Our thanks go, fi rst and foremost, to Bernd Halling, External Relations Offi cer, who coordinated the content development of this book and for all his hard work and support to the book through its many phases. We also thank Ozias Tungwarara, Senior Programme Offi cer, who developed the concept from the beginning and helped in the initial phase of writing and collection of material, as well as IDEA’s Publications Manager, Nadia Handal Zander for her help in the production of this book. Foreword International IDEA was born in 1995 in a world tions—hence the notion of local ownership of the which was optimistic about democratic change. process of reform and development. For signifi - The end of the Cold War had ushered in a period cant political reforms and public policy decisions, of opportunity and innovation with democracy as there needs to be the space and time for knowl- well as more self-critical analysis of the quality and edge to be shared, for information to be circulated, achievements of democracies, old and new.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy and Modes of Conflict Management in Ethnically
    Nations and Nationalism 8 (4), 2002, 423±431. # ASEN 2002 Types of democracy and modes of con¯ict management in ethnically divided societies* SAMMY SMOOHA Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel ABSTRACT. The Western democratic nation-state is a model state in the world state system. It appears in two variants: individual-liberal and republican-liberal. Both are grounded on individual rights only. In the West there are also several cases of consociational democracy in which separate national communities and their collective rights are recognised. Since World War II the liberal nation-state has been under global and internal pressures to change. It has kept its basic character but partially decoupled nation and state and recognised group differences. Along with individual- liberal democracy, republican-liberal democracy and consociational democracy, multicultural democracy and ethnic democracy are taking shape as alternative types of democracy. This fivefold typology can contribute to the fields of comparative politics and comparative ethnicity. It serves as a broad framework for the analysis of five states in this special issue: Northern Ireland, Estonia, Israel, Poland and Turkey. The classical, historical and dominant model of the state in the West is a democratic nation-state. At the core of society is the individual citizen. The state grants equal civil and political rights to all. The system is based on the principles of equality of individual rights, individualism, competition, achievement, free mixing of people, and privatisation of ethnicity and reli- gion. The impartial state, like the blind free market, is neutral toward all citizens and treats them equally, irrespective of their ethnic, religious, lin- guistic, cultural and national origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Trade-Offs: Democracy and Governance in a Changing World Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth 237–242
    Politics and Governance Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2463 Volume 7, Issue 4 (2019) Trade-OffsTrade-Offs inin thethe PoliticalPolitical Realm:Realm: HowHow ImportantImportant AreAre Trade-OffsTrade-Offs inin Politics?Politics? Editors Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth Politics and Governance, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4 Trade-Offs in the Political Realm: How Important Are Trade-Offs in Politics? Published by Cogitatio Press Rua Fialho de Almeida 14, 2º Esq., 1070-129 Lisbon Portugal Academic Editors Todd Landman (University of Nottingham, UK) Hans-Joachim Lauth (University of Wuerzburg, Germany) Available online at: www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance This issue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Articles may be reproduced provided that credit is given to the original andPolitics and Governance is acknowledged as the original venue of publication. Table of Contents Political Trade-Offs: Democracy and Governance in a Changing World Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth 237–242 Designing Democratic Constitutions: The Search for Optimality Steffen Ganghof 243–253 Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda Måns Nilsson and Nina Weitz 254–263 The Theory of Democratic Antinomies and the Identification of Value Trade-Offs in Political Practice Oliver Hidalgo 264–274 Globalization and Modern Slavery Todd Landman and Bernard W. Silverman 275–290 Free Trade versus Democracy and Social Standards in the European Union: Trade-Offs or Trilemma? Claudia Wiesner 291–300 Associations between the Mixture of Governance Modes and the Performance of Local Public Service Delivery Yin Lei Win Swe and Seunghoo Lim 301–314 Identifying Profiles of Democracies: A Cluster Analysis Based on the Democracy Matrix Dataset from 1900 to 2017 Oliver Schlenkrich 315–330 Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions Anne Isabel Kraus, Owen Frazer, Lars Kirchhoff, Tatiana Kyselova, Simon J.
    [Show full text]
  • Lijphart's Typology of Democracies
    Original citation: Doorenspleet, Renske. (2013) Which type of democracy performs best? Acta Politica . ISSN 0001-6810 (In Press) Permanent WRAP url: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/52073 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes the work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for- profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article accepted for publication in Acta Politica. A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the ‘permanent WRAP url’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] http://go.warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Which Type of Democracy
    [Show full text]