Long after the height of the global decolonization wave that swept the world in the decades following World War II, there still exists a number of smaller island territories around the world where the full political independence route has not been taken, but where constitutional ties to colonizing states have instead been retained. This has mainly been attributed to a range of observed relative benefits of staying affiliated with a larger, richer mainland metropole, often related to material gains, security, and citizenship. The status of affiliated territories has been described as offering a potential “best of both worlds”, combining such benefits with a degree of autonomy. At the same time, however, territory-metropole relationships have been found to frequently give rise to controversies and fears of re-colonization, and concerns related to identity and nation-building appear difficult to balance with development considerations. With the literature remaining divided about the merits of metropolitan affiliation, questions persist as to how contemporary territory-metropole relationships should be construed. Do they indeed constitute a “best of both worlds”, or are they better understood as (neo)colonial arrangements? While academic debates are ongoing with many, sometimes conflicting, arguments being made about this over the past decades, the perceptions of those living under such arrangements have rarely been directly considered. This article analyses the political arrangements in 15 non-self-governing (island) territories (NSGTs) from the experiences and voices of territory representatives themselves, as expressed in addresses to UN decolonization committees, to examine which of the perspectives and arguments put forward in the academic debates are validated, or challenged, by these characterizations of metropolitan affiliation.

Mucho después del apogeo de la ola de descolonización global que arrasó el mundo en las décadas posteriores a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, todavía existen varios territorios insulares de pequeño tamaño en todo el mundo donde aún no se ha tomado la ruta de la independencia política completa, pero donde se han mantenido en cambio vínculos constitucionales con los Estados colonizadores. Esto se ha atribuido, principalmente, a una serie de beneficios relativos observados de permanecer afiliado a una metrópoli continental más grande y rica. Estos beneficios, con frecuencia, están relacionados con ganancias materiales, seguridad y ciudadanía. Se ha descrito el estatus de territorios afiliados como una opción que ofrece lo «mejor de ambos mundos», ya que combina dichos beneficios con un cierto grado de autonomía. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, se ha descubierto que las relaciones entre territorio y metrópoli provocan, con frecuencia, controversias y temores con respecto a una posible recolonización. Además, aquellas preocupaciones relacionadas con la identidad y la construcción de la nación parecen difíciles de equilibrar con las consideraciones de desarrollo. Mientras la literatura sigue dividida sobre las ventajas de la afiliación a una metrópoli, aún persisten preguntas con relación a cómo deben interpretarse las relaciones contemporáneas entre territorio y metrópoli. ¿Constituyen realmente estas relaciones «lo mejor de ambos mundos» o es mejor entenderlas como acuerdos (neo)coloniales? Si bien en las últimas décadas se han llevado a cabo debates académicos en los que se han proporcionado numerosos argumentos, a veces contradictorios, sobre este tema, rara vez se han considerado directamente las percepciones de quienes viven en esos contextos. Este artículo analiza los acuerdos políticos en 15 territorios (insulares) no autónomos (TNA) a partir de las experiencias y de las voces de los propios representantes de estos territorios, expresadas a través de discursos ante los comités de descolonización de la ONU, con el fin de estudiar cuáles de las perspectivas y argumentos presentados en los debates académicos son validados o cuestionados por estas caracterizaciones de la afiliación metropolitana.

Longtemps après l'apogée de la vague de décolonisation mondiale qui a traversé le monde dans les décennies suivant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il existe encore un certain nombre de petits territoires insulaires dans le monde où la trajectoire menant à une indépendance politique complète n'a pas été prise, et qui ont plutôt conservé des liens constitutifs avec les États colonisateurs. Cette réalité a notamment été attribuée à un éventail d'avantages constatés du fait de rester affilié à une métropole continentale plus grande et plus riche, souvent liés à des gains matériels, à la sécurité et à la citoyenneté. L'on a décrit le statut des territoires affiliés comme pouvant offrir « le meilleur des deux mondes », en combinant ces avantages avec un certain degré d'autonomie. En même temps, cependant, les relations entre territoires et métropoles donnent souvent lieu à des polémiques et des peurs de recolonisation, et il paraît difficile de compenser les craintes liées à l'identité et la construction de la nation par des considérations de développement. La littérature restant divisée quant aux mérites de l'affiliation à la métropole, des questions persistent concernant l'interprétation des relations contemporaines entre territoires et métropoles. Constituent-elles réellement un « meilleur des deux mondes » ? Ou s'agit-il plutôt d'arrangements (néo)coloniaux ? Tandis que les débats académiques se poursuivent avec la proposition de nombreux arguments, parfois contradictoires, à ce propos ces dernières décennies, les points de vue de ceux qui vivent ces arrangements sont rarement pris directement en compte. Cet article analyse les arrangements politiques dans 15 territoires (insulaires) non autonomes (TNA) d'après les expériences et voix des représentants des territoires eux-mêmes, telles qu'elles s'expriment dans les discours devant les comités de décolonisation de l'ONU. Ainsi, l'on souhaite examiner quels sont les perspectives et arguments exprimés dans les débats académiques qui sont validés ou remis en question par ces caractérisations d'affiliation métropolitaine. 

Survey studies show that popular support for democracy is strong in democratic and non-democratic countries. Naturally, the question is if democracy actually means the same thing in different linguistic, cultural, and political contexts. Mass media is often mentioned as decisive in forming citizens' understandings of democracy, but the media discourse is rarely in focus in comparative studies on popular conceptions of democracy. This article contributes to the debate by analysing data collected from online media in 93 countries. By utilizing tools from natural language processing, we provide new insights based on methods that are both extensive, flexible and cost-efficient. Our analysis shows that the media discourse revolves around democracy as governance, as outcomes and as values, but that these abstract understandings have additional dimensions. Our main contributions are three: (i) we show that the media discourse is related to popular understandings of democracy; (ii) our results indicate that there are common denominators of how the D-word is discussed in media across the globe, but when analysing the dimensions in more detail, common denominators are few and (iii) by relating democracy to everyday politics, media seems to legitimize any regime as democratic rather than being a beacon for liberal democracy.

The right to self-constitute and to demarcate the demos, i.e. the right to regulate membership, is an important part of Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination. The right to self-constitute may create different kinds of conflicts with the states in which Indigenous Peoples live but may also affect the balance of power within Indigenous communities. The transnational Indigenous Sámi people have no common constitution defining who belong to the people. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, Sámi membership has been handled in relation to specific legislation on Sámi issues. In this chapter, the authors’ aim is twofold: First, to describe the criteria for registering in the Sámi electoral roll in the Nordic states and second, to analyze why these criteria have been perceived in such a different fashion within the Sámi communities in their respective countries and why they have been implemented differently by the three Sámediggis. Since Indigenous self-determination within the borders of already-existing nation-states always means some external control and not total autonomy, it is important to compare how the question of membership is playing itself out among the same Indigenous People but in different national contexts that otherwise have so much in common.

On an international level, we have the last decades witnessed a remarkable development of Indigenous rights, mainly as a result of Indigenous peoples’ political struggle and mobilisation on a local, national and international level. Paramount in this context is the third article of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognising Indigenous peoples as peoples with a right to self-determination. The Nordic countries had a common response to rights-claims from their Indigenous people, the Sámi, in establishing representative institutions – Sámediggis (Sámi Parliaments in Northern Sámi) – consisting of popularly elected Sámi representatives. Today, the Sámediggis are considered the main vehicles to safeguard Sámi self-determination. What the right to self- determination implies in political practice – that is, for domestic constitutional, legal and institutional reforms – is, however, still most controversial. How Sámi self-determination ought to be implemented in the Nordic countries has also been recurrently debated, especially the role of the Sámediggis. There are, however, few systematic studies analysing how persons belonging to Indigenous peoples perceive the right to self-determination: On what matters are self-determination of importance to Indigenous persons? Are there differences between persons identifying with the same Indigenous group? And how are Indigenous persons’ understanding of self-determination related to international law and contemporary national policies? The aim of this chapter is to analyse Sámi self-determination from the perspective of the Sámi electorate in Sweden based on data from the second Swedish Sámi Election Study in 2017.