Talk:Democratization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukechartersreid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes removed[edit]

My recent text on this page was quickly reverted with small amount of description of why it was done. Couple of questions: 1. There was a claim for OR. Could someone explain how many citations are expected per paragraph to keep my text ? 2. Also a claim for poor language. I thought Wikipedians should help each other if some parts of the text is poor. I doubt that Wikipedia articles arise from perfectly phrased paragraphs right at the start. Wikipedia was built to allow cooperation. Can you explain what language level expectation is required to participate on this Wikipedia page?

I would happily adjust my text according to the advices of the moderators of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iley.power (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry, I was a bit over-the-top in reverting your additions. I apologise. I mainly removed it because most of it was unsourced; You did include some sources, but they mainly addressed specific events such as the 2017 police strike, not democratic transitions as a whole. You could find some reputable academic sources that talk about democratic transition, and include those. TeraTIX 07:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth and Hitler[edit]

There is a really amateur comment about Hitler in the section Causes of Democratization under wealth, and it's really stupid. For one, the source that is given is obviously fake: Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990, noting that the Nazi's rise and fall happened before 1950. Secondly, a quick look at Google books shows that the book never mentions the words Nazi or Hitler, and with every mentioning of Germany having the prefix of East or West, with the split occurring as a by-product of World War II. Finally, the statement is just plain false. Anyone with a smattering of world history would know that Germany was facing a huge economic crisis when it became fascist. "Hitler" is not an counterexample to anything. What's up with the admins, can they not take two seconds to digest things, or do they just approve everything with a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.165.130 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

It is written here that A tradition of democracy is valued only positive for a prosess of democratisation. I think that has to be more nuanced, because some kinds of tradition of democracy, like having experienced democracy in near future, also gives the country an experience of how to break down the democracy and make democratisation fail. In such cases the movements in the society that might be against democratisastion, may have the knowledge of how to do coup d'etats, and thereby becomes the tradition of democracy the cause of the breakdown of the democratising system.

That's a good point. I've changed the article to hopefully better represent this. -- Vardion 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this article needs the ten links at the bottom of the page to articles only about Middle Eastern democratization and nothing else - appart from anything else several of the articles are things like for example a US Army war college analysis - this is not appropriate. I have tried to shift the articles to a link specifically about Middle Eastern democracy, but they keep being reverted again.This article is not about democratization in the Middle East.


With regard to the first sentence of the page, scholars have not uniformely agreed on the qualifications listed for a country to be considered a "democracy". I don't want to abruptly change it and accidentally make it more confusing, but one must consider who is defining democracy. Also, the "Factors affecting democratization" needs clarification and a few additions--for example, the "resource curse". In traditional Political Science terminology, one cites three factors that affect democratization and democracy: structural, institutional, and cultural. All factors listed in this page fall within one of these three categories. One final suggestion--it might be more effective to cite a few examples of countries undergoing movements towards democracy and explain them, instead of listing links to about 20 random movements. For example, the case of Senegal could be explained, how a non-western definition of demokaraasi can ultimately lead to democracy in the western sense of the word, including peaceful alternations of power via elections. Just my two cents... I'm willing to make these changes on the page gradually, but I didn't want to do anything too rash and have it misunderstood and then deleted. -Jessi Schoner

"Anarchization"[edit]

"For example, a very extreme democratization that delegates decision to very small units without any central control is sometimes referred to as anarchization." Is there any source for that term actually existing? Or any historical example? Somalia is/was often seen as an anarchy, but I do not understand how this relates to democracy.Ultramarine 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia is only 'anarchic' if you restrict your understanding of authority to Westphalian states. The clan system continued to exist after the fall of Barre and continues to structure politics there to this day. Anarchization would have to involve a diminishing of structures of coercion, so that politics became increasingly a matter of free association. In that sense, Western Europe might be a better place to look for it.--86.134.234.199 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenous population[edit]

Removed the claim that a country cannot develop a stable democracy without a homogenous population - Canada, the United States, Belgium, Switzerland, India and Australia prove this claim absolutely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.164.73.25 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In Belgium there is currently conflict between the Waloon and Flemish regions over the formation of a new national government - it has even been suggested that Belgium could cease to exist.

There remains a strong independence movement in Quebec - very much based on French language and culture.

In Switzerland, there were several wars over which culture would be dominant - the biggest example of this was the Sunderbund War. Arguably the German Protestant tendency won and has dominated ever since - as shown by the emergence of Bern, Zurich and Basle as the real centres of power in the republic. Also, in many cases the individual Swiss Cantons have very homogenous populations, and it is only when the nation is considered as a whole it appears heterogenous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.11 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broader definition please[edit]

Just passing through here, but I notice how limited the current opening definition is, and it isn't helped by the in other contexts section either. The opening should include a definition of the process, regardless of its major use in discussing governmental structures. Any institution, movement or group of any kind may be involved in a process of democratization--the arts, sciences, civil society, culture more widely, etc. I've linked here from a discussion of movements around the 1900s that involved the democratization of theatre, as audiences become broader and characters represented move from aristocrats to bourgeois to working-class. It's not my field here, but if anyone's actively monitoring the page, please have a go at a broader opening. Thanks, DionysosProteus 10:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. I would also like to change the tone of the definition of democratization to saying it is the structual change, giving more power to the individual in rights to change and/or make policy, making it less autotharian. In this form it doesn't describe what level of autonomy the individual have to have beforehand or after but only that there's a change in said level.

"Western" idea[edit]

Have removed Brazil from the non-western examples of democracies as Brazil is very much a western country. Latin America for goodness sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.11 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I did not remove any sourced material, see edit summaries. The claim regarding the UK is simply false, the democratization process was extremely slow. If no objections, I will restore the corrections.Ultramarine 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed the sentence with the UK example to a correct version ("consolidated" instead of "quickly consolidated"). But I do not understand why you removed the history section, describing three democratization waves. That section includes citations. Would you prefer renaming it to "Waves of democratization"? Or you have more substantial objections to the history section? Tankred 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the history section. I think that the "Effects of democratization" section could be eliminated, there are certainly many effects of democracy and democratization, covered in for example liberal democracy article, so need to mention only the effect on civil wars here. Thoughts? Ultramarine 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the purpose of the "Effects of democratization" section is to discuss the effects of democratization on political stability in general and organized violence in particular. According to many empirical studies, democratization from authoritarian regimes to partial democracies brings more instability, while democratization from a partial to a full democracy decreases the likelihood of violent conflict. But you are right that this section is not very clear and it is much shorter than other sections of the article. I would prefer to expand it instead of deleting it, but, as I do not have much time to work on it right now, I would not insist on retaining it in its present form. If you have time and inclination, you are more than welcome to expand and copyedit this section, though. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to do it. Tankred 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Instead of spreading omnifarious difficulties and controversies of the subject over the whole body of the article, it's better to introduce this almost standard for any npov article section and collect there all the issues, practical difficulties, opposing opinions, etc.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue on last paragraph under Views on democratization[edit]

The last paragraph of the Views on democratization section should be clearly attributed to the author and source of these observations, Larry Pardy, to maintain NPOV. It currently reads like it is presenting the views and observation of Pardy as fact. --202.144.133.68 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and democracy[edit]

Shouldn´t there be added a small section on gender and democracy? Gender equality as both part of democracy and prerequisite for democratisation, and also number of female dictators and female led governments after dictatorships and wars. And I can´t see even one reference to any female writer. I don´t know enough about this subject to do it myself, besides: I am just too tired and don´t have energy to do this kind of thing, that might lead to a of quarrelling. Simply searching with words like "women democratisation" or "gender democratisasion" gives lots of interesting articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toove (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial independence in Poland[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Judiciary of Poland#Judicial independence in Poland. Whizz40 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested added paragraph to Economic development and modernization theory (however self-cite)[edit]

Liberalization in autocracies was more likely to succeed in countries that had the advantage of a better starting point concerning political institutions, GDP, and education. These more privileged countries could also carry out key reforms more rapidly, and were able to do so even in areas in which they had no initial advantage. This indicates the presence of a "Matthew effect" in political science: to countries that already have, more is given.[1][2][3] PzychoPat (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lindenfors, Patrik; Wilson, Matthew; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2020-09-25). "The Matthew effect in political science: head start and key reforms important for democratization". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00596-7. ISSN 2662-9992.
  2. ^ Edgell, Amanda B.; Boese, Vanessa A.; Maerz, Seraphine F.; Lindenfors, Patrik; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2021). "The Institutional Order of Liberalization". British Journal of Political Science. 52 (3): 1465–1471. doi:10.1017/S000712342100020X. ISSN 0007-1234.
  3. ^ Wilson, Matthew C.; Medzihorsky, Juraj; Maerz, Seraphine F.; Lindenfors, Patrik; Edgell, Amanda B.; Boese, Vanessa A.; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2022). "Episodes of liberalization in autocracies: a new approach to quantitatively studying democratization". Political Science Research and Methods: 1–20. doi:10.1017/psrm.2022.11. ISSN 2049-8470.

Democratisation of this article ;)[edit]

It's impressive to see the evolution of this article since its first version of 20:52, 29 September 2003 by an editor who made three edits on that day and then disappeared. What survived back then for seven months without even a single source URL (three academics' names were mentioned) now has 137 watchers, any unsourced statements are unlikely to survive for more than a few minutes, and overall the article is well structured and well sourced, even if improvements are possible. Ironically, a lot of the sources are closed access (secret sources of knowledge are contrary to the whole idea of democracy), but quite a few are open access; my prediction is that in 2043, chances are that most of the sources will be open access (the 10th anniversary of Aaron Swartz's decease comes up in a few days' time). Congratulations to everybody working on the article. :) Boud (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratization&oldid=1206930469"