Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy : Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability

Baldwin, Kate; Holzinger, Katharina

Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy : Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability

Dateien

Baldwin_2-icfg5bmham6a3.pdfGröße: 210.73 KBDownloads: 779

Datum

2019

Autor:innen

Baldwin, Kate

Holzinger, Katharina

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Green

Sammlungen

Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaft
Exzellenzcluster "Die politische Dimension von Ungleichheit"

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Comparative Political Studies. 2019, 52(12), pp. 1747-1774. ISSN 0010-4140. eISSN 1552-3829. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0010414019852686

Zusammenfassung

This article revisits prominent frameworks for understanding traditional political institutions which make pessimistic assessments about their compatibility with democracy. Traditional political institutions are often assumed to be unaccountable because they are led by undemocratic leaders who are not subject to electoral sanctioning. However, drawing on new information from the TradGov Group dataset, an expert survey on the contemporary practices of more than 1,400 ethnic groups that currently have traditional political institutions, we show that these institutions contain their own distinct mechanisms of accountability. In a majority of cases, decision-making is consensual and leaders must account for their actions in various ways. We challenge the electoral accountability framework for understanding the quality of traditional leaders’ performance, instead arguing that traditional political institutions can be compatible with democracy and even accountable to their citizens insofar as they adopt inclusive decision-making processes and their leaders have strong nonelectoral connections to the communities they represent.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

320 Politik

Schlagwörter

traditional political institutions, traditional leaders, democracy, accountability, state building

Zitieren

ISO 690

BALDWIN, Kate, Katharina HOLZINGER, 2019. Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy : Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability. In: Comparative Political Studies. 2019, 52(12), pp. 1747-1774. ISSN 0010-4140. eISSN 1552-3829. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0010414019852686

BibTex

@article{Baldwin2019-10Tradi-46073,
  year={2019},
  doi={10.1177/0010414019852686},
  title={Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy : Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability},
  number={12},
  volume={52},
  issn={0010-4140},
  journal={Comparative Political Studies},
  pages={1747--1774},
  author={Baldwin, Kate and Holzinger, Katharina}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/46073">
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/46073/1/Baldwin_2-icfg5bmham6a3.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:contributor>Baldwin, Kate</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:issued>2019-10</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:contributor>Holzinger, Katharina</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/46073/1/Baldwin_2-icfg5bmham6a3.pdf"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43613"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/46073"/>
    <dcterms:title>Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy : Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43613"/>
    <dc:creator>Holzinger, Katharina</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">This article revisits prominent frameworks for understanding traditional political institutions which make pessimistic assessments about their compatibility with democracy. Traditional political institutions are often assumed to be unaccountable because they are led by undemocratic leaders who are not subject to electoral sanctioning. However, drawing on new information from the TradGov Group dataset, an expert survey on the contemporary practices of more than 1,400 ethnic groups that currently have traditional political institutions, we show that these institutions contain their own distinct mechanisms of accountability. In a majority of cases, decision-making is consensual and leaders must account for their actions in various ways. We challenge the electoral accountability framework for understanding the quality of traditional leaders’ performance, instead arguing that traditional political institutions can be compatible with democracy and even accountable to their citizens insofar as they adopt inclusive decision-making processes and their leaders have strong nonelectoral connections to the communities they represent.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-06-24T09:31:43Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:creator>Baldwin, Kate</dc:creator>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-06-24T09:31:43Z</dc:date>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja

Begutachtet

Ja