African Ambiguities: Africa, 1990–1997-From Abertura to Closure

When and Where Do Elections Matter? A Global Test of the Democratization by Elections Hypothesis, 1900-2012

“…While scholars like Bratton (1998) argue that Africa has returned to neopatrimonial politics, others see a continuation of disorder and destructive politics (Chabal and Daloz 1999), no change at all (Akinrinade 1998), political closure (Joseph 1998), semiauthoritarianism (Carothers 1997), or elections without democracy (van de Walle 2002).…”

Untitled

“…They included the Mozambique Nationalist Movement (Monamo) 12 , the Mozambique United Front (Fumo) 13 , the 11 A Portuguese term that has entered comparative political discourse as a description of Brazil´s gradual transition from military to elected government (Joseph 1999 The remaining parties were formed by individuals who deserted Frelimo in the 1980s for various reasons (Table 4), including marginalisation and/or failure to progress in the hierarchy (Sitoe, Matsimbe & Pereira 2005); parties formed by leaders who split from Renamo during the civil war (Unamo/Udemo); parties resulting from breakaways 16 within the newly formed non-armed opposition parties (Table 5) and parties set up by political entrepreneurs pursuing individual fortunes or increased personal prestige in the run-up to the 1994 elections and mainly motivated by the financial support provided by the 1994 UN Trust Fund to support parties and candidates contesting national elections 17 (Table 6). There has also been a strong trend towards coalitions in party structuring activity.…”

Forms of States, Governance, and Regimes: Reconceptualizing the Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in Africa

“…Young (1994) focuses on continuity. Chabal and Daloz (1999) and Joseph (1998) exemplify the many stories of state and rulers' adaptation. Then there are the analyses that capture the discontinuities, such as that by Bratton and van de Walle (1997).…”

“…There is the possibility that rulers will find new alliances in the global political economy and create entirely different forms of governance within penetrative or penetrative-coercive forms of states, which may or may not be compatible with democracy. The theoretical framework suggested here provides the opportunity to avoid the teleology of many other accounts (with exceptions of course, such as Joseph, 1998) in that a particular form of state, governance, or regime is not assumed to be the necessary "result." It makes it quite clear that several stable combinations may, or may not, be the most desirable outcome.…”