Endorsement Of Democracy Research Articles

Afterword

In 1941, Jacques Maritain mused about writing a variation on the Federalist papers, this time keyed not only to approval of the United States constitution but for the “entire world.” We could use such a document now, as democracies falter. Maritain, more than any other thinker, laid the groundwork for the Catholic Church’s endorsement of democracy. The task today, therefore, is to remember and also improve upon what Maritain once taught us.

Null Effects of Pro-Democracy Speeches by U.S. Republicans in the Aftermath of January 6th

AbstractHow can political elites strengthen citizen commitment to democratic norms when democracy is under imminent assault? We report results from a pre-registered survey experiment on the persuasive effects of actual speeches given by prominent Republican politicians (Schwarzenegger, McConnell) shortly after the January 2020 insurrection at the U.S. capitol. Although both speeches were widely considered effective at the time, in a survey experiment among Republican voters, we find no impact of one-time exposure to these speeches on the endorsement of democracy, the acceptance of election losses, the rejection of political violence, or the relevance of democratic norms in hypothetical vote choices.

Is prophetic witness the appropriate mode of Christian participation in public discourse in the Netherlands?

Dutch Protestantism is characterised by a hidden tension between a theocratic tradition and the endorsement of democracy. In this article it is argued that the idea of prophetic witness has its roots in the theocratic tradition, and that it is not compatible with the endorsement of democracy.

Eduardo Frei Montalva y su época

This work is more than a biography; it is political history of Chile covering half of the twentieth century. It encompasses the origins and rise to power of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), Frei’s presidency, and his opposition to both the Unidad Popular and the military government. Gazmuri draws on a great diversity of sources to portray Eduardo Frei and his role in shaping the nation’s political culture from the 1930s to the 1980s.Cristián Gazmuri traces the PDC, through its origins in Catholic Action, the Conservative Party, Social Christian organizations, and Chile’s Falange (which he distinguishes, in its endorsement of democracy, from the fascist Spanish Falange). The heterogeneous roots of the PDC provided diversity and strength in its early years, but once the party achieved power this diversity led to antagonisms and schisms. The first to leave was the Movimiento de Acción Popular Unitaria (MAPU) in 1969, followed by Izquierda Cristiana in 1971. Gazmuri partly attributes MAPU’s defection to the PDC’s poor showing in the 1970 presidential election.One of the ironies of Eduardo Frei’s presidency is that he was far more popular with the country as a whole than he was in his own party. During much of his presidency he was under siege from the “rebeldes,” the “terceristas,” and party’s youth movement. Gazmuri describes a political polarization that distanced both the right- and left-wing parties while destabilizing the centrist PDC. He also sees an internal generational tension between Frei’s peers and the new party leadership. Moreover, the PDC’s inability to define its key value of “comunitarismo” led numerous idealistic party youth to embrace socialism.Gazmuri credits Frei with many accomplishments, such as housing, education, rural unionization, and a partial nationalization of copper during his presidency. He questions, however, the impact of policies such as promoción popular, agrarian reform, and the government’s development model. All tended to raise expectations beyond the state’s ability to deliver. Frei, according to Gazmuri, failed to find a middle road between capitalism and socialism and was never able to develop an efficient productive unit that would give real dynamism to the Chilean economy. He succeeded in providing services and redistributing income, but he failed to achieve his growth target or keep down inflation. Especially in light of Chile’s development in the 1990s, Gazmuri finds Frei’s growth model flawed.In spite of Frei’s shortcomings, the author recognizes that he guaranteed Chileans a standard of living in the 1960s superior to that of the 1970s. He firmly supported democracy, even putting down a military uprising in 1969, which unfortunately was a premonition of things to come. Gazmuri is less charitable with Frei’s heir apparent, Radomiro Tomič. The author faults him with failing to emphasize his party’s many accomplishments in the 1970 presidential campaign, and instead promising to take the country sharply to the left. Even after Tomič came in last in the election, he continued to advocate a leftward course. As political polarization increased under the new president, Salvador Allende, Frei encouraged his party to oppose radical socialization. In 1973 he was elected senator and then president of the senate, which allowed him to oppose tenaciously illegal expropriations and other abuses of power. Frei firmly believed that Allende violated the constitution and threatened civil liberties. According to Gazmuri, Frei therefore approved of Allende’s overthrow, believing that the military would soon restore civil government. When this did not happen, and as civil rights abuses became notorious, Frei became one of the military’s most public critics. Frei died in 1982 during a routine hernia operation, and some suspect he was poisoned. With his death, Gazmuri says that the country lost “the one Chilean personality who was perceived as capable of confronting the dictatorship.”