Democratic innovation South Africa in Comparative Context

World Politics

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 1993, Pages 121-150

  Shapiro, Ian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005865538     PISSN: 00438871     EISSN: 10863338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2950668     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. For my account, see Robert Dahl and Ian Shapiro, “Impressions from the Soviet Union, ” Dissent (Summer 1991), 342-45.
2. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942).
3. See Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).
4. For many of the standard arguments, see Ian Shapiro and Grant Reeher, eds., Power, Inequality, and Democratic Politics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988).
5. On this contentious subject, see Noël Mostert, Frontiers: The Epic of South Africa's Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa People (New York: Knopf, 1992);
6. and the penetrating review of that work by J. M. Coetzee, “A Betrayed People, ” New York Review of Books (January 14, 1993), 8-10.
7. See also Crawford Young, “The African Colonial State and Its Political Legacy, ” in Donald Rothchild and Naomi Chazan, eds., The Precarious Balance: State and Society in Africa (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988).
8. See Leroy Vail, ed., The Creation of Tribalism in South Africa (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989).
9. Indeed, it is more extreme. See Francis Wilson and Ramphele Mamphela, Uprooting Poverty: The South African Challenge (New York: Norton, 1989), 18ff. The authors provide evidence that by the late 1970s South Africa's gini coefficient was the highest of any country in the world for which data were available.
10. For a more elaborate critique of Przeworski and others for paying insufficient attention to such internal divisions, see Peter Swenson, “Bringing Capital Back In, or Social Democracy Reconsidered: Employer Power, Cross-Class Alliances, and Centralization of Industrial Relations in Denmark and Sweden, ” World Politics 43 (July 1991);
11. idem, “Labor and the Limits of the Welfare State, ” Comparative Politics (July 1991).
12. Quoted in New York Times, December 21, 1992, p. A7.
13. See Donald Akenson, God's Peoples (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991), 295-310;
14. and L. Alberts and Frank Chikane, eds., The Road to Rustenberg (Cape Town: Struik Christian Books, 1992).
15. In this connection there is some evidence, contra Przeworski, from the former communist world that democracy and liberalization can be most strongly supported by the groups that suffer most during transitions. See the poll from Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Samara reported in Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Moscow), March 12, 1992.
16. Samuel Huntington, “Will More Countries Become Democratic?” Political Science Quarterly 99 (Summer 1984).
17. Juan Linz, “Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration, ” in Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, eds, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pt. 1, 34ff.
18. Barrington Moore, Jr., The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 413-32.
19. For one useful empirical discussion in the Egyptian context, see Bruce Rutherford, “Can an Islamic Group Aid Democracy?” in John Chapman and Ian Shapiro, eds., NOMOS XXXV: Democratic Community (New York: New York University Press, 1993).
20. New York Times, February 19, 1993, pp. Al, A7.
21. For evidence that substantial violence was emanating from both political extremes, see Anthea Jeffery, “Spotlight on Disinformation about Violence in South Africa, ” Spotlight, no. 8 (October 1992), published by the South African Institute of Race Relations.
22. In this connection we await the results of important research on Ubuntu by Ziba Jiyane, “Securing Democracy and the Rule of Law in South Africa” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, in progress).
23. Bentley, The Process of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908);
24. David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951).
25. Robert Dahl's study of New Haven, Connecticut, was the classic of this genre; see Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).
26. Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955).
27. See also Robert Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).
28. For a good account of the history of the pluralist argument and an elaboration of its logic, see Nicholas R. Miller, “Pluralism and Social Choice, ” American Political Science Review 77, no. 3 (1983).
29. See Eric Foner, “Why Is There No Socialism in America, ” History Workshop Journal 17 (Spring 1984);
30. Sean Wilentz, “Against Exceptionalism: Class Consciousness and the American Labor Movement, ” International Labor and Working Class History 26 (Fall 1984);
31. and G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books 1978).
32. See Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977).
33. Arend Lijphart, “Consociational Democracy, ” World Politics 21 (January 1969), 213-15, 222.
34. See Gordon Wood, Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (New York: Norton, 1969), 3-124.
35. See also idem, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1992).
36. David Apter, Ghana in Transition (New York: Atheneum, 1963), 203-6.
37. Michael Walzer, “The Idea of Civil Society, ” Dissent (Spring 1991), 302-3.
38. Tocqueville makes this claim most explicitly while discussing the relative merits of Catholicism over Protestantism in democratic systems. See Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Anchor, 1969), 449, 450-51.
39. For elaboration of this view, see Ian Shapiro, “Three Ways to Be a Democrat, ” Political Theory 22 (February 1994).