After the fall of communism the ascendancy of neoliberalism seemed assured. Democratic government and free market capitalism had been universalized and any serious alternatives to them had disappeared. Rather than the end of ideology, neoliberalism is the latest version of the western ideology, proclaiming universal values and modernity, in the form of the liberal global order and globalization. Critics argue that neoliberalism is chiefly associated with the United States and Britain, and is best understood as a form of hegemony, concerned with the projection of Anglo-American values, policies and institutions around the world, including a particular model of capitalism and military interventions, and a particular conception of the West.

This article argues that three factors have framed elite political debate and outcomes on a Bill of Rights in Britain – the degree of commitment to an ideology of social liberalism, the executive/non-executive power orientation of key actors and the phenomenon of policy drag. These factors explain not only the overall historical contours of political debate but also (1) Labour's ‘aversive’ conversion to the Bill of Rights agenda and passage of the Human Rights Act (1998); and (2) the Conservatives’ more positive recent attitude to the Bill of Rights agenda.

Until the early 1990s, the Italian political system was regarded as anomalous among advanced democracies because of its failure to achieve alternation in government. Since then, that problem has been overcome, but Italy has been popularly viewed as continuing to be different to other democracies because it is ‘in transition’ between regimes. However, this position itself is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain because of the length of time of this so-called transition. Rather than focus on what is rather an abstract debate, it may be more fruitful to analyse what, in substance, is distinctive about Italian politics in this period: the manner in which a debate over fundamental institutional (including electoral) reform has become entangled in day-to-day politics. This can best be exemplified through an analysis of two key electoral consultations held in 2006: the national elections and the referendum on radically revising the Italian Constitution.

This article suggests guidelines for identifying the ramifications of central elements of candidate selection methods for various democratic dimensions – participation, competition, representation and responsiveness – and analyses their possible role in supplying checks and balances. It proposes employing a three-stage candidate selection method: in the first stage a small committee appoints candidates to a shortlist; in the second stage a selected party agency may add or remove candidates using a special procedure (absolute majority vote, for example) and also ratify the re-adoption of incumbent candidates; and, finally, party members select candidates for safe seats or safe list positions among the proposed candidates. The article also recommends employing moderate requirements for candidacy; the use of a non-majoritarian voting method; and allowing the national centre a say in candidate selection.

In a referendum in July 2005 the people of Uganda voted overwhelmingly in support of reintroducing the multiparty system. As a result, one expected an increase in candidates running on party tickets other than the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) in the local elections in March 2006. However, the findings in this article reveal that politicians challenging the incumbent preferred to be non-partisan candidates rather than members of the opposition parties. Based on semi-structured interviews with 198 local leaders, this article connects local perspectives on the reintroduction of the multiparty system with well-known explanations of weak opposition in Africa, and discloses how formal institutions and people's notions of representation limit the prospects of the opposition at the local level.