Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-w8vvr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-27T06:34:24.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Globalization and the death of liberal democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Paul Cammack
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is doubtful as to whether the countries of the Third World are likely to move to the kind of liberal democracy that is regarded as characteristic of the West. In particular, parties are often remaining ‘parties of the State’ and not organizations truly competing with each other. This is in part a consequence of economic globalization, as the requirements of global economic liberalization do not fit with the requirements of democracy. In such a context, clientelism around the State may be inevitable and it contributes to ensuring that the main party in the country, and indeed all parties become ‘parties of the State’, as is the case in Mexico or Malaysia and perhaps in the Ukraine and South Africa. Thus, globalization does not mean the end of the State, but possibly the end of liberal democracy.

Information

Type
Focus: The Future of Democracy in the New Millennium: Can Parties Respond to the Challenge?
Information
European Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , May 1998 , pp. 249 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Potter, D. (1997) Explaining democratization. In Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M. and Lewis, P. (eds), Democratization (Cambridge: Polity Press/Open University), 1–40.Google Scholar
2.Schmitter, P. and Karl, T. (1993) What democracy is …and is not. In Diamond, L. and Plattner, M. (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press), 39–52.Google Scholar
3.Diamond, L., (1996) Is the third wave over? Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.O'Donnell, G. (1996) Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Pye, L. (1958) The non-Western political process. Journal of Politics, 20, 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Schumpeter, J. (1943) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (London: George Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
7.Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its Critics (New Haven and London: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
8.Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Cammack, P. (1997) Capitalism and Democracy in the Third World (London and Washington: Leicester University Press).Google Scholar
10.Diamond, L. (1993) Three paradoxes of democracy. In Diamond, L. and Plattner, M. (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press), 95–107.Google Scholar
11.Moran, J. (1996) Contradictions between economic liberalization and democratization: the case of South Korea. Democratization, 3(4), 459–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Almond, G. A. (1960) Introduction: a functional approach to comparative politics. In Almond, G. and Coleman, J. (eds) The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
13.Huntington, S. P. (1996) Democracy for the long haul. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Clapham, C. (1982) Clientelism and the state. In Clapham, C. (ed.) Private Patronage and Public Power: Political Clientelism in the Modern State (London: Frances Pinter).Google Scholar
15.Philip, G. (1996) Democracy in Mexico. Democratization, 3(1), 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Crouch, H. (1996) Government and Society in Malaysia (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Jesudason, J. V. (1996) The syncretic state and the structuring of oppositional politics in Malaysia. In Rodan, G. (ed) Political Oppositions in Industrialising Asia (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
18.Wolczuk, K. (1997) Presidentialism in Ukraine: a mid-term review of the second presidency, Democratization, 4(3), 152–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Birch, S. (1997) Nomenklatura democratization: electoral clientelism in post-Soviet Ukraine. Democratization, 4(4), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Good, K. (1997) Accountable to themselves: predominance in southern Africa, Journal of Modern African Studies, 35, 547–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar