Dear Artur, in my opinion, If the problem is a democracy challenge stemming from corruption then it will not be far fetched to say that an environment where a thorough education and forum for nationals to publicly and freely discuss matters that addresses the issue of corruption should be created first by way of priority in the build up to birthing a newly founded democratic state.

This is because once democracy is undermined by election malpractices and corruption it becomes difficult to trust it's resulting leadership or governing mechanism.

So if we tackle first and foremost and people begin to have confidence in the democratic process, then we can begin to take other national agenda's like human development, institutional development and economic development. Invariably once we roll out modules that allow for human development and institutional development, then all things being equal economic development could be a reality.

A big challenge for new democracies is to build institutions that secure rule of law, voice of the people and accountability of the rulers to them, control over corruption, effective governance. In some countries this has proven more difficult than in others and unfrotunately it appears linked to history and culture. Nevertheless, neutral strong institutions is the way to combat corruption sometimes external pressure e.g. in form of threats of withdrawn financila aid can help.

For me, speaking out of own experience ( Croatia is my home country), the toughest challenge is changing the mindset. In socialism we werr used to having "someone else" thinking and making decisions; in democracy we have to take responsibility for what we do on personal, group and national level. It seems to be very difficult. It requires number of changes in culture, education, politics...

In Brazil, parties has not provide new leaders. So, we have not new names betwenn politics candidates do receive vote specially from the young people.

For such a country, if the society are to benefit from democracies then they should ensure there are strong and independent institutions, manned by officer of high integrity and fear rules of law - personal opinion

There are several main strategic issues for countries that are in a stage of new democratic system. The main point is too assure a judicial independent and strong with an effective enforcement. Then becomes many issues starting with anti corruption control and strengthening the public and private new institutions. Also reforms are necessary .

I think this question can not be asked in abstraction nor a-historically. The nation in question and its specific historical trajectory to new nationhood matters. Indian nation was formed after a protracted freedom struggle, for example, and its birth was marked by a brutal partition. The Indian nation itself was internally fragmented into principalities and British Presidencies. Therefore uniting the nation securing its internal integrity and safeguarding the same, while adapting new and Western institutions of liberal democracy were the priorities. To go back to the first point, newly founded democracies can flourish only based on their historical background, current social structure and willingness of the political power elite to install strong institutions of democracy. India at its beginning as democracy had some of these. Therefore, the generic title ' newly founded democracies' is somewhat an expression in abstraction. Transition to democracy is a historical transition. It will always carry its genetic and birthmarks of its own in each specific land. The question regarding such transition may be put forth in a more grounded manner.

Hello Professor Anil Kumar

India and all countries that were under UK domain as colonies are a special case and if you want explain more about it.

The research is about new democracies, meaning countries that became from a division of the country in two nations you have the example of Servia and Kosovo (became separate of Servia) - that in Europe. In Africa there is plenty of them, most old colonies which transition process to independency was different from UK including guerrilla war. Those countries became independents without any passed history and with different political parties that in some cases went into civil war -the case of Angola. So there was no transition to democracy - they just implanted peacefully or with war the democracy.

I admire India democratic process but it is different of the focus of my research because as you say wisely " Transition to democracy is a historical transition".

I am glad for your very important remark that will help in my research to clarify and identify the deferments processes or kinds of implementation.

Mohinder Kumar thanks for your reply. However my research and in general academic research is independent of any political opinion or party and your comment is strongly political To all my colleagues in research and connected questions and replies, please refrain about criticising + or - actual political personalities.

The major problem with many countries trying to adopt the American mode of democracy is they lacked the morals and political will to implement the ideals of the kind of democracy they intend adopting. I just finished writing a paper on this subject matter as relates to Nigeria to be presented soon in a conference in Algeria

Professor Kayode Asaju thanks for your contribution and reply. A wide concept of democracy (please note that the concept was born in my opinion with the French revolution “ Libertée, Equalitéee et Fraternitée” meaning Liberty, Equality and Fraternity came along the time and history (like Our colleague Anil Kumar Vaddiraju referred in his reply) became from an historical process of peoples and cultures. The American democracy is one of many concept that would be interesting to research. My work is a narrow tunnel and is directed to New Democracies as you can read in my paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325217818_Bankrupt_or_quasi-State.

Be welcome!

Professor Sabine Franklin Thanks for your answers that help me to clarify some necessary points of my research.

The period of the research start with democracies in the beginning of the cold war 60s..

The second question is how were these democracies "founded"? Good question for the consideration of the research. There are two causes for those democracies.

1) In the sixties the decision of UN - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 were followed by a number of countries that had colonies and gave then independence in a peaceful process. Others like Portugal did not accepted and had war (guerrilla) in the colonies, like Angola, Mozambique, Timor, Guinea Bissau and others. The independence of these countries was given after the revolution in Portugal of 25th April 1974. However in this decolonization process there was no power and institutions capable to start ruling the counties as a democratic and it appeared in all a bloody civil war.

After some years and depending of the countries the civil war finished with the diplomacy mediation and it appeared a “New Democracy”. So here the political system is very specific for each country and with lots of internal and external vulnerabilities. These are just a brief example to your understanding of the question.

2) Other causes – I will choose the example of Kosovo. On February 17, Kosovo's parliament declared Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Security Council Resolution 1244, which set forth the international oversight of Kosovo following the 1999 NATO intervention, and the international law of self-determination, secession, and recognition, demonstrates that while Kosovo's declaration of independence and its recognition by various states can be justified under existing international law. This is a second case of “New Democracy”.

Each country has specifications cultural, ethnic or religious or being even historical. It is these advantages of implementing a new democracy and the vulnerabilities after the implementation that we research.

In this other causes you can include countries with a political transition from dictatorship to democracy, either by popular revolution or elections – Like in Portugal, Spain and South Africa.

Thanks for your question that really helps to group different causes and effects. I will take it in consideration to make it more clear.

Certainly among the challenges facing "new democracies", I posit that placing considerable emphasis on the need to ensure that good governance principles and practises are imbued in the relevant: judicial, legislative, executive and very importantly oversight entities. Concerning the latter, it is essential the required level of autonomy is afforded such bodies, so as to insulate them from undue political pressures.

Professor Paco Smith thanks for your reply. Good governance is always desired and a main point for social and economic development. However to reach the level of “good governance” is a long way for any country and takes a lot of auditing mechanisms and good leaders.

�X

Dear Arthur,

This is a certainly a relevant question and one which lies at the core of multiple political debates in intellectual and public policy circles today.

With democracy being such a broad and somehow 'adaptable' signifier, I would like to know what definition of democracy are you departing from in your research?

I think this is crucial for if we think of democracy as merely "free and fair elections" (as per electoral integrity standards), many newly-established democracies would fall under this category--despite having abhorrently low standards in the realms of rule of law, standards of living and access to a dignified life, citizenship participation in the political life, to name a few.

If, however, we take democracy to be a more encompassing term and define it as the political vehicle for the people to drive in the direction towards equality and collective freedom, then certainly the aforementioned democracies would by no means fall under this category. That is, they would not be deemed democratic. Take the case of the Latin American region. According to the 2012-2017 Electoral Integrity Project, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Colombia are categorized as having high electoral standards--thereby deemed democratic in this narrow sense of the term.

If we dig deeper, we can see how economic inequality deeply undermines democracy and fragments the citizenry. This has been the most prominent problematics that newly-established democracies face.

Dear Professor Alejandra

Thank you very much for you intervention which is very pertinent and accurate. Over passing the theme many times i say in conferences that it is necessary re-think the concept of democracy, because nowadays we are in a world where there is only intervention of political parties and not the people. Today’s democracy should turn over to be a true people intervention on the rule of the nation – direct democracy. Sorry for this introduction that does no really belong to the reply to your intervention.

Yes the term in my research is democracy as “ as the political vehicle for the people to drive in the direction towards equality and collective freedom, then certainly the aforementioned democracies would by no means fall under this category. “ as you define it.

Of course that if you see my previous replies is delimited by time and extension as it is so large that i have to focus only in the most visible vulnerabilities. And one of the vulnerabilities is exactly the electoral act.

I could do a seminar about, political campaigns, frauds and use of private and public money in elections and so on. Those are frequent vulnerabilities that countries with New or Old democracies have. My message to your reply is that in elections aside all those problems i mentioned above the main one is that people does not believe anymore in the system and it happens: a) abstention and b) vote in any alternative that apparently seems better.

I would like to discuss further more this issue because you touched in a very important and sensible vulnerability. I will try to write a paper soon about elections and hope we can discuss it.

Dear Professor Imran Hanif

Well done. Accountability is the formula to prevent and sustains those institutions. Thanks for your reply

I think that only a good education system can develop a society. Because proper education enables intellectual independence, emancipation of society, and consequently empower democracy. Then we could talk about a law-based democracy, good governance, transparency etc.

Professor Dritero Arifi, thanks for your reply. Yes i think that is fundamental education especially in new generations, teaching and making citizenship effective. But there are some others difficulties – please read my today paper DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.19781.96483 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325314373_Elections-Money_and_Political_Interests

you are welcome

Dear Dr. Imran Hanif i believe that is more a question of wich political system the democracy assumes. The term democracy is a concept very abstract meaning the govern by the people or the french revolution principles, freedom - equality and fraternity. You can imagine the wide spread of interpretations that can exist. Here we are specific trying to define the vulnerabilities of a country that for diferentes reasons becomes democratic. In emerging democracies all is having a new and fresh start no matter the bad conditions of its past history.

Thanks for your valuable contribution. Have a nice weekend.