The collapse of European communism two decades ago appeared to determine, once and for all, the fate of radical socialism in the modern world and to draw a line under the forty years of Cold War that had now ended. In an overview of both the course and end of this global confrontation, and of the legacy of communism itself, this article argues that many of the analytical and social dimensions of the Cold War have still to be adequately addressed, and that, while traditional Marxism has indeed been discredited, the need for critical and, where pertinent, utopian thinking remains as relevant as ever.

Semi-presidentialism is the situation where a constitution makes provision for both a directly elected fixed-term president and a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to the legislature. A common argument against the adoption of a semi-presidential constitution by a new democracy is the problem of cohabitation – where a president from one party holds power at the same time as a prime minister from an opposing party and where the president's party is not represented in the cabinet. The concern is that cohabitation creates competing power centres within the executive that are dangerous for young democracies. This article shows that cohabitation has been directly associated with the collapse of a young democracy in only one case. Moreover, by specifying the conditions under which cohabitation can occur, we also show that the threat of cohabitation has been associated with collapse in only one further case. We suggest that this is so because cohabitation refers to a very specific situation that can only occur under a certain combination of circumstances that can often be avoided. Overall, we show that there is little evidence to support one of the most well-known and long-standing arguments against semi-presidentialism. Thus, while semi-presidentialism may indeed be perilous for new democracies, we conclude that it is perilous for reasons other than the problem of cohabitation.

Politics and gender scholarship is increasingly seeking to understand the relationship between the presence of women in politics and gendered policy outcomes – the substantive representation of women (SRW). Yet its focus remains squarely on the activities of ‘critical actors’ in parliaments and women's policy agencies and on ‘feminist’ rather than ‘mainstream’ policy areas. In contrast, this article investigates the impact of feminist actors in a range of institutional settings on recent processes of welfare reform in the UK. It finds that the gendered welfare reform introduced by New Labour was initiated and pushed through by a coalition of committed feminist actors across a range of institutions. Crucially, the reforms relied on the existence of ‘strategic actors’ and ‘gate openers’, defined as feminist actors in positions of significant institutional power. It makes a contribution to the actor-centred SRW scholarship, develops an institutionalist approach to this research and identifies the need for a political economy perspective to understanding how women can shape policy outcomes.

This article argues that the Turkish economic elite – represented by the Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD) – has preserved its liberal democratic stance despite tensions between the religious Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the secularist establishment. Although secular itself, large business maintained a moderate position in the conflict and has continued to push for democratization thanks, in part, to organizational factors that ensure consistency in the larger goals of the association. The article thus claims that studying business as organization rather than business as capital can help the comparative literature understand how entrepreneurs' commitment to democracy under capitalism can become long term.

During times of violent conflict, states may closely scrutinize the loyalty of those who lead minority religious communities. November 2005 saw elections for Islamic councils in Thailand's three southern border provinces. The Muslim-majority subregion had experienced escalating political violence since January 2004. Allegations of electoral manipulation were rife; the elections were proxy struggles between the Thai state and potential opponents. This article positions these elections within wider debates about the nature of the relationship between Islam and the state, in Thailand and beyond. It argues that politicizing Islamic organizations may be a dangerous game for states and elite actors to play.