首页> 外文期刊>Democratization >‘Well, what can you expect?’: donor officials' apologetics for hybrid regimes in Africa
【24h】

‘Well, what can you expect?’: donor officials' apologetics for hybrid regimes in Africa

机译:“嗯,您能期待什么?”:捐助者官员对非洲混合政权的道歉

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Most sub-Saharan African countries are neither liberal democracies, nor fully authoritarian. Officials from Western governments that provide assistance to these ‘hybrid regimes’ often become apologists for their lack of democracy. Rather than cogently arguing why democracy promotion activities should not be a priority, such donor officials frequently claim either that their host country is more democratic than it actually is, or that it could not be any more democratic for the time being. Drawing on some 70 interviews with donor officials in three African countries - Kenya, Malawi and Rwanda - over a period of more than a decade, this paper examines numerous individuals' common use of three methods to deflect criticism of the democratic credentials of their host countries: (1) focusing on election day, rather than the campaign and conditions as a whole; (2) setting the standard very low (do not expect too much); and (3) setting a long time horizon (do not expect it too soon). Perhaps equally important, the paper also explores the various reasons why these donor officials make such excuses for authoritarian practices.View full textDownload full textKeywordsdemocratization, elections, hybrid regime, illiberal democracy, authoritarianism, foreign aid donor, Kenya, Malawi, RwandaRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.553368
机译:大多数撒哈拉以南非洲国家既不是自由民主国家,也不是完全专制的国家。为这些“混合政权”提供援助的西方政府官员常常因缺乏民主而成为辩护律师。这些捐助者官员没有坚定地争论为什么不应将民主促进活动作为优先事项,而是经常声称他们的东道国比实际更民主,或者暂时说它不再民主。在过去的十多年中,对三个非洲国家(肯尼亚,马拉维和卢旺达)的捐助者官员进行了约70次采访,本文考察了许多人对三种方法的共同使用,以转移对本国民主证书的批评:(1)关注选举日,而不是整个竞选和条件; (2)将标准设置得很低(不要期望太高); (3)设定较长的时间范围(不要期望过早)。也许同样重要的是,本文还探讨了这些捐助者官员为威权做法提供此类借口的各种原因。查看全文下载全文关键词民主化,选举,混合政权,自由民主,威权主义,外援捐助者,肯尼亚,马拉维,卢旺达相关变量var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“ Taylor&Francis Online”,servicescompact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.553368

著录项

  • 来源
    《Democratization》 |2011年第2期|p.512-534|共23页
  • 作者

    Stephen Brown;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 13:06:32

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号