A new conventional wisdom is emerging among analysts, journalists, and even some government officials in the West who see former Security Council chairman Alexander Lebed as the last great hope for Russian reform. No one doubts that if free and fair elections were held in the immediate future, Lebed would be the obvious front runner. What is troubling, however, is how Lebed's front-runner status in the polls and opposition stance against the current regime has translated into rather uncritical thinking about what his election might mean for the future of Russian markets and Russian democracy.

Full article available with subscription.

The historical facts of Russian politics over the last year appear to point to tremendous progress in making a democracy. There are milestones well worth noting in 1996, especially when compared to other periods: the upheavals of the early years of the new Russian state, the seventy years of totalitarian rule under the Communists, and the hundreds of years of autocratic government under the tsars.

On 26-27 January 1996, the National Endowment for Democracy's International Forum for Democratic Studies and the Pacific Council on International Policy convened a one-and-a-half-day conference on democratic development and economic growth in East Asia and Latin America. The conference sought to shed light on the relationship between constructing democratic governance and building market economies in both regions.Participating in the meeting were 18 eminent scholars from Asia, Latin America, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Not all participants were able to attend the second day's morning session. About 30 additional scholars, business and community leaders, and members of the press attended as observers. Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, gave the luncheon address. (Names in italics in this report are identified in the appendix.)

This report summarizes the presentations and comments made during the conference. While every effort has been made to portray accurately the range of opinions expressed, space and organizational considerations have required omissions and paraphrasing. This report was written by Chappell Lawson, a graduate student in political science at Stanford University, and edited by the International Forum for Democratic Studies and the Pacific Council on International Policy. Any errors in fact or interpretation should be attributed to the author and editors.

The conference and this report were made possible in part by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York to the International Forum for Democratic Studies and grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the General Service Foundation, and the James Irvine Foundation to the Pacific Council on International Policy. The funders do not take responsibility for any statements or views expressed in this document. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Forum for Democratic Studies, or the Pacific Council on International Policy. Photocopies may be made. When using any part of this document, please cite the International Forum for Democratic Studies and the Pacific Council on International Policy. This report was produced by Debra Liang-Fenton, Conferences & Publications Coordinator of the International Forum.

How can external actors - governments, regional organizations, the United Nations, financial institutions, nongovernmental organizations - affect the process of democratic transition and consolidation? In Beyond Sovereignty, leading scholars and policy experts examine the experiences of a variety of Latin American nations and the relevant characteristics of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations to draw lessons that can be applied globally.

The contributors begin by discussing evolving views of sovereignty, democracy, and regional security. They review the past efforts and present capacity of various international organizations - the United Nations, the Organization of American States, external financial institutions, and transnational nongovernmental organizations - to further efforts to deepen democracy. They also offer case studies of how these organizations related to democratic development in Chile, El Salvador, Haiti, and Peru.

The last section applies lessons learned to two problematic regimes: Cuba and Mexico. This timely and useful collection will be of interest to all who study democratic transition and consolidation, comparative politics, Latin American politics, international organizations, and international relations more generally.

Contributors: Domingo E. Acevedo, Larry Diamond, Jorge I. Dominguez, Denise Dresser, Stephanie J. Eglinton, Patricia Weiss Fagen, Tom Farer, David P. Forsythe, Alicia Frohmann, Claudio Grossman, Anita Isaacs, Anthony P. Maingot, Joan M. Nelson, David Scott Palmer, Karen L. Remmer, Kathryn A. Sikkink, and Fernando R. Tesón.

From the Introduction:

"Concern over democracy's uncertain prospects inspired the project that culminates in this volume. Two assumptions shaped the collective effort of its contributors: one, that external actors can contribute to the defense and enhancement of democracy, and two, that tolerance for such external action has increased dramatically--even measures that would once have been widely condemned as impermissible intervention are acquiring a remarkable aura of legitimacy. An increase in tolerance is least marked, however, for unilateral action of a coercive nature, which in the Western Hemisphere usually means action that the Unites States has taken on its own initiative."

How will civil-military relations affect efforts to consolidate new democracies in developing and postcommunist countries? How should democratic governments go about establishing civilian control of the armed forces? This volume brings together ten distinguished authorities from around the world to examine these questions as they relate to Latin America, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union.

In its first edition, The Global Resurgence of Democracy brought together essays on democratization written from 1989 to 1991 by internationally prominent scholars, intellectuals, and political leaders. This thoroughly revised and updated second edition extends that work with a wealth of fresh material on a wide range of conceptual, historical, institutional, and policy issues.

"A useful compilation popularizing the work of an influential journal . . . The Journal of Democracy is an effective tribune for mainstream U.S. thinking on these issues." - Political Studies

Most observers of Russia's historic presidential election on July 3 believed that Boris Yeltsin and his colleagues had made a dramatic bid for reelection and won. But Time magazine's ensuing cover story, "Yanks to the Rescue," by chief political correspondent Michael Kramer, and the ABC news Nightline feature "Secret Weapon," aired July 8, had a different take. They chose to downplay the greatest political event of the decade -- the triumph of democrats and democracy in the first direct election of a head of state in Russia in a thousand years -- and featured instead three American consultants who allegedly won the race for Boris Yeltsin. As one of these men boasted on Nightline, "We have brought democracy to the evil empire and the world will be forever changed because of it." This is ludicrous.

Full article available with subscription.

Michael McFaul comments that events during Russia's July 1996 runoff election have highlighted the flaws in the new democracy there.

Full article available with purchase.

The last year of Russian politics presented a great challenge for analysts both in Russia and the West. Polarized for years over the future of Boris Yeltsin and Russian democracy, both optimists and pessimists faced a critical test of their assumptions, models and ability to predict events. With the main event -- the presidential election -- now over, the optimists can claim victory.

Full article available with subscription.

On 17 December 1995, Russian voters elected representatives to the Duma, the lower house of parliament. For the first time in the thousand-year history of Russia, these elections were held under law, as scheduled, and without serious fraud or falsification. Though the balloting occurred in the dead of winter, was only for one house of the parliament, did not include a presidential election, and was confused by the participation of 43 parties, nonetheless an amazing 65 percent of eligible voters turned out. In historical perspective, the conduct of this election must be seen as a positive step toward democratic consolidation in Russia. But while the process was encouraging for democracy, the results were not. Parties with questionable democratic and reformist credentials made significant gains in the Duma.