User:Trl22012/sandbox

Anocracy and Civil War
There are differing views on whether or not anocracy leads to civil war. It is debated whether or not transitions between government regimes or political violence leads to civil war.

There is a process that generally leads to civil war in unstable countries. It starts with a countries' government not being able to provide the populations demands. Whether or not it is because they refuse to(as in autocracies) or are just not established and successful enough to is not relevant. The populations demands not being met lead to factionalism within the country. When the factions are not able to get what they want, then they take up arms against the state.

Former Democracies that transition to anocracy have a greater risk of being caught in civil conflict. The population has seen what they could become and what rights they had as a democracy, and therefore there is a greater chance they will fight for what they once had. On the other hand, autocracies that transition into anocracies are less likely to break out in civil war. Anocracies themselves are not unstable. There are many countries that are stable but are classified as anocracies, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is the transitional qualities associated with some anocracies that are predicative of civil conflict. The magnitude of the transition also has an impact of the probability of a civil conflict. The higher magnitude of the transition, the higher likelihood of civil war.

However, some international relations experts use the Polity data series in the formulation of their hypothesis and their study and this presents a problem because the Polity IV system uses violence and civil war as a factor in their computation of a countries' Polity score. Two components, "the degree of institutionalization, or regulation, of political competition", and "the extent of government restriction on political competition", are problematic to use in any study involving Polity IV and civil war in anoretic governments. In the numeric rating system of one of these parts of Polity IV, unregulated, "may or may be characterized by violent conflict among partisan groups". The other component says "there are relatively stable and eduring political groups- but competition among them is intense, hostile, and frequently violent . The only thing that can be deduced concretely, is that political violence tends to lead to civil war .  There is no solid evidence to support that political institutions in an anocracy leads to civil war.

Bolivia
From the years 1944 to 1970, Bolivia was coded as an anocracy. However, without the two parts of the Polity IV that deal with political violence and civil war, Bolivia would be classified as a classic dictatorship. Bolivia was coded as having a civil war in 1952. It was not the institution of anocracy itself that led to this civil war, it was political tension and violence throughout this period.

Sri Lanka
From 1978 to 1983, Sri Lanka was classified as a democracy. In 1983, one thing changed-political participation became factional/restricted. Sri Lanka then changed from a 6 on the polity scale to a 5, making it a anocracy rather than democracy. Civil war erupted in 1987, thus proving that anocracy tends to cause civil war. However, the one thing that changed dealt with the prevalence of political tension and violence. Therefore, anocracy did not lead to civil war, political violence did.

Russia
On the Polity IV scale, Russia is classified as Open Anocracy, which means that it is between one and five. Open anocracy is classified as having democratic elections, but ones that are not very free, and the country does not grant some rights of the population. The press is strictly monitored, as is incoming news from the outside world. Russia has all of these characteristics. The elections in Russia are controlled by Vladmir Putin. Putins actions are seen as undemocratic by a lot of the world. Russia makes most of its capital from oil exports, and 35 percent of Russia's wealth resides in 110 people. Russia's lack of a middle class is a factor in its reputation worldwide as a illiberal democracy.

Ukraine
Late in 2013, the former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was conducting talks with the European Union about establishing closer ties. Instead, Yanukovych backed out of the agreement and chose to go over to Russia for some multi-billion dollar loans. This was a highly controversial decision throughout the world and was unpopular among the western nations, as they saw this as an act of Russian aggression. The elections held to determine if Crimea was to be part of Ukraine were highly criticized as well. Questionable elections are a characteristic of anocracy. In February of 2014, the death tool in Kiev rose to almost 100 due to the rioting and civil violence. This, in combination with the governments loose hold on their subjects, and foreign interference makes Ukraine an example of a transitional state, one that is in an anocratic stage.

Yugoslavia/Serbia
Yugoslavia was a large country in Europe until the 1990's. It was mostly held together in the latter half of the 20th century by Josip Tito, a president strongman that ruled by force of personality. Tensions rose between the different ethnic groups mashed together in Yugoslavia, the Croats, Serbs, Albanians, and others. New states formed were Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. The Yugoslav wars in the 1990's were very destructive and cost many lives. The fragmentation of power in Yugoslavia, disputed elections, and the discontent of the differentiated ethnic political groups are the main factors of Yugoslavia and the successor states being considered anocracies. The political stagnation, and the non-civilian control of the military during the civil wars are a large part as well.