Search

Republicanism, Communism, Islam: Cosmopolitan Origins of Revolution in Southeast Asia. By John Sidel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2021. xiv+309 pp. A book spends almost its entire existence on a shelf, [...]

Abstract Democracy and opposition are supposed to go hand in hand. Opposition did not emerge as automatically as expected after Indonesia democratized, however, because presidents shared power much more widely [...]

The contemporary literature on authoritarian durability focuses more on democratic-looking institutions such as parties, elections and parliaments than the institution in which authoritarian regimes are most importantly embedded: the state [...]

Comparative politics has witnessed periodic debates between proponents of contextually sensitive area studies research and others who view such work as unscientific, noncumulative, or of limited relevance for advancing broader [...]

The study examines the role of communal elites, in the democratic mobilization in the Southeast Asian countries of Burma, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. Democratic movements are more likely to succeed with the involvement of elites. The impact of solidarities and nationalist and religious sentiments are also discussed.

Hope Is When Army Officers Are Democrats. --Louis de Bernieres, Senor Vivo and the Coca Lord Indonesia seems perpetually condemned to 'live in interesting times,' as the famous Chinese curse [...]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x Byline: Brian Lai (1), Dan Slater (2) Abstract: What are the most important sources of institutional variation among authoritarian regimes, and how do such institutions influence these dictatorships' propensity to initiate military disputes? This article argues that most existing studies in both comparative politics and international relations employ a flawed conceptualization of authoritarian institutions. Excessive focus on the personalization or institutionalization of authoritarian regimes' decision-making procedures has distracted attention from the more critical issue of what institutions these regimes deploy to enhance social control and secure political incumbency. Since military regimes are systematically less effective than single-party regimes at developing these types of authoritarian institutions, they more frequently resort to desperate measures to fend off domestic challenges to their power. In particular, we find compelling empirical support for our hypothesis that military regimes are more likely than single-party regimes to initiate military disputes, irrespective of whether those regimes are highly personalized or not. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Iowa (2)University of Chicago Article note: Brian Lai is assistant professor of political science, University of Iowa, 341 Schaeffer Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242 (Brian-lai@uiowa.edu). Dan Slater is assistant professor of political science, University of Chicago, 5828 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 (slater@uchicago.edu).

How can political scientists best uncover historical causation without committing infinite regress? This article introduces a revised framework for historical analysis that can help systematically capture the deepest causal factors in political development. It improves on the familiar 'critical juncture' framework by specifying the precise causal or noncausal status of the 'antecedent conditions' preceding critical junctures. After disaggregating antecedent conditions into four logical types, the authors argue that scholars should be especially mindful of critical antecedents: factors or conditions preceding a critical juncture that combine in a causal sequence with factors operating during that juncture to produce divergent outcomes. Through analytic reviews of a wide array of major works, the authors illustrate how critical antecedents can clarify causal claims and enhance knowledge accumulation in comparative politics.

Theoretical and conceptual implications of authoritarian instructions and the personalization of power in democracy Malaysia is demonstrated. Evidences from Malaysia support that a highly institutionalized authoritarian organization facilitate the personalization of power.

Imperial Alchemy: Nationalism and Political Identity in Southeast Asia by Anthony Reid. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2010. 262 pp. Paper, $29.99. Perhaps the best two words to describe this [...]