After the death of Franco in 1975, Spain undertook a process of democratization (The Transition). In many aspects, this process constituted a great example for many other democratic transitions....Show moreAfter the death of Franco in 1975, Spain undertook a process of democratization (The Transition). In many aspects, this process constituted a great example for many other democratic transitions. However, some shadows still overflies the political system emanated from that process. During the decade of the 2000's, many associations started a process for the recuperation of those forgotten through the 'Pact of Silence': a tacit agreement by the main political actors of The Transition, which left aside the memory of the victims of the dictatorship, in order to consolidate a weak emerging democracy. This social demands finally generated a Law of Historical Memory (2007). However, many political and social sectors in Spain considered it as insufficient. With the change of government, in 2012, this law was 'de facto' derogated. The spanish recent memory, then, constitutes an active weapon in the spanish political battlefield; still nowadays, and despite the law. This thesis, through oral interviews to testimonies of different generations, seeks for the differences in the discourse about the historical memory between those who lived The Transition, and those who did not. Does it exist a generational gap? And, in case of being affirmative this question, could it entail some political consequences?Show less
Advanced master thesis | Political Science (Advanced Master)
closed access
This thesis assesses the notion that liberal democracies make inherently poor counterinsurgents by conducting a most similar case comparison of the Algerian War (1954- 1962) and the Second Chechen...Show moreThis thesis assesses the notion that liberal democracies make inherently poor counterinsurgents by conducting a most similar case comparison of the Algerian War (1954- 1962) and the Second Chechen War (1999-2009). By comparing two cases where prominent variables were common, other than regime type and case outcome, this paper was able to determine that regime type does matter in small wars. Although both counterinsurgents were able to achieve military success through brutality, regime type was ultimately consequential to the outcomes of the small wars. Whereas the more authoritarian state (Russia) was relatively unimpeded in its war effort, the democratic state (France) ultimately lost the war due to the freedom of the media and its democratic institutions. In France, the media exposed the barbarisms of the army, generating condemnation at both domestic and international levels. This opposition to the war effort would prove insurmountable to the democratic state. Through coercion, France sought to suppress domestic criticism, but in doing so, eroded the democratic virtue of the state. Ultimately faced with the option of either preserving democracy or maintaining the brutal, but effective, counterinsurgency, France capitulated, ending its colonial rule in Algeria. Russia, on the other hand, was never held accountable due to an aggressive information operations campaign that precluded the war effort from becoming a prominent public issue. As the suppression of public criticism is unavailable to democratic states, democracies are found to be inherently less proficient at counterinsurgency.Show less
Research master thesis | History: Societies and Institutions (research) (MA)
open access
2013-01-18T00:00:00Z
In the British House of Commons of the 1860s and 1870s, the concept of ‘democracy’ was despised by most of its members: the word carried a strong negative connotation. No one wanted to have a...Show moreIn the British House of Commons of the 1860s and 1870s, the concept of ‘democracy’ was despised by most of its members: the word carried a strong negative connotation. No one wanted to have a democracy, and no one wanted to be a democrat. Gradual franchise extensions (1867, 1884) transformed this valuation. Yet it took the British parliament decades of debates, and three parliamentary reform acts, before the concept of ‘democracy’ was judged positively by most members of the House. It was only after the Third Reform Act, during the Irish Home Rule debates of 1886, that a new consensus was reached: on the fact that Great-Britain was a democracy, and essentially ruled by ‘the people’. Twenty years before, during the Second Reform Act debates in 1866, such an utterance was unimaginable; it was perhaps desired by a few Radicals, but condemned by a broad majority. Hence, in the period from 1866 to 1886, the meaning and value of the concept of ‘democracy’ underwent a complete and unexpected change. How can we explain this conceptual turnover, from an essentially negative to a predominantly positive valuation? And how did democracy’s meaning shift? Those are the two questions that this thesis tries to answer.Show less
In the early 1980s most Latin American countries made a transition from authoritarian to democratic regimes. They went along with the third wave of democratization that had started in the 1970s in...Show moreIn the early 1980s most Latin American countries made a transition from authoritarian to democratic regimes. They went along with the third wave of democratization that had started in the 1970s in Southern Europe (Linz ,Stepan and Gunther 1995, 124). In 1978 only three of the twenty Latin American countries were democratic; Colombia, Venezuela and Costa Rica. By 1992, 15 of the remaining countries transitioned to semi-democratic or democratic regimes. Democracy had been experienced previously in this region, but it was a very oligarchic regime with limited competition. Besides, democracy had never lasted long and it has never involved as many countries as after during the third wave (Hagopian and Mainwaring 2005, 1-2). However, this does not mean that democratization has been entirely successful. Unlike the Southern European countries which were able to consolidate, most Latin American countries are still facing challenges of creating stable, consolidated democracies. In fact, many of these countries are not fully democratic yet or are facing democratic erosion (Millet 2009, 5; Linz, Stepan and Gunther 1995, 124). This is mostly due to the fact that governments have not been able to deal with certain problems that most Latin American countries have in common: problems like poverty, inequality, and high crime rates. This has led to dissatisfaction with democracy and to popular unrest (Hagopian and Mainwaring 2005, 1-2). Fortunately, this does not apply to all countries. Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica for example, are considered to be consolidated democracies. Why is it that democracy has consolidated in some countries and it hasn’t in others?Show less
