Democracy Core - JDI 2013

8/9/2019 Democracy Core - JDI 2013

1/90

Democracy CoreDemocracy Core..........................................................................................................................1Uniqueness...................................................................................................................................3

Global Democracy Low...........................................................................................................4

AT: Global Democracy Low....................................................................................................7Democracy Good.........................................................................................................................8

Democracy GoodLaundry Lis!..............................................................................................."Democracy Good # $ar.........................................................................................................1%Democra!ic &eace T'eory True..............................................................................................1(Democracy Good # )conomy................................................................................................14Democracy Good # )n*ironmen!..........................................................................................1+Democracy Good # ,!a!e -ailure...........................................................................................1Democracy Good # Terrorism...............................................................................................17AT: Democracy /ad # Terrorism...........................................................................................18AT: Transi!ion $ars...............................................................................................................1"

AT: Transi!ion $ars # /ac0slidin 2u!wei's......................................................................(%Democracy /ad.........................................................................................................................(1

1C........................................................................................................................................(((C Li!!le )!........................................................................................................................(+(C Democracy$ar..........................................................................................................((C AT: ,ol*es $ar..............................................................................................................(8(C AT: Democra!ic &eace T'eory True..............................................................................3%(C AT: Accoun!abili!y.........................................................................................................33(C Transi!ion $ars..............................................................................................................34(C Democracy # )con Colla5se.........................................................................................3(C Democracy # )n*ironmen!al Des!ruc!ion.....................................................................38

(C Democracy /ad # )uro5ean $ars.................................................................................4%(C Democracy # 6eemony Colla5se................................................................................41(C Democracy # Terrorism.................................................................................................43(C Tru!' Claims DA...........................................................................................................4

La!in American Democracy.......................................................................................................48eican Democracy Good........................................................................................................+(

Uniqueness.............................................................................................................................+3)n*ironmen!..........................................................................................................................+4,!abili!y..................................................................................................................................+Demo &romo..........................................................................................................................+8

eican Democracy /ad..........................................................................................................+"

)n*ironmen!..........................................................................................................................%,!abili!y..................................................................................................................................(Demo &romo..........................................................................................................................3

Cuban Democracy Good............................................................................................................4)n*ironmen!..........................................................................................................................+,!abili!y.................................................................................................................................."

Cuban Democracy /ad..............................................................................................................7()n*ironmen!..........................................................................................................................73


2/90

,!abili!y..................................................................................................................................7ene9uelan Democracy Good....................................................................................................81

)n*ironmen!..........................................................................................................................8(,!abili!y..................................................................................................................................84

ene9uelan Democracy /ad......................................................................................................8

,!abili!y..................................................................................................................................87)n*iornmen!..........................................................................................................................88ene9uelan ,!abili!y m5ac!s.....................................................................................................8"


3/90

Uniqueness


4/90

Global Democracy Low

Democracy is declining globally – in numbers, quality, and public support.

Kurlantzick !!

;os'ua ela!ions.?Democracy in s!ee5 decline around !'e world@. T'e a!ional. ;uly 1+ (%11.'!!5:BBwww.!'ena!ional.aeBnewsBworldwideBmiddleeas!Bdemocracyins!ee5declinearound!'eworld5aeCoun!%

/u! !'e Arab ,5rin is in many ways a mirae. ,e*eral na!ions in !'e reion maye*en!ually ma0e !'e !ransi!ion !o democracy !'is is 'ardly assured bu! in reali!ydemocracy is "altering t#roug#out t#e de$eloping world, "rom %sia to Latin %merica, "rom

%"rica to t#e "ormer &o$iet states. 'n its annual sur$ey !'e moni!orin rou5 (reedom)ouse w'ic' uses a rane o= da!a !o assess social 5oli!ical and economic =reedoms "oundt#at global "reedom plummeted "or t#e "i"t# year in a row in *+!+, t#e longest continuous

decline in nearly + years. n =ac! t#ere are now "ewer elected democracies t#an t#ere werein !--. A moun!ain o= o!'er e*idence su55or!ed -reedom 6ouseEs =indins. /ne o" t#e

o!'er most compre#ensi$e studies o= lobal democracy com5iled by GermanyEs0ertelsmann (oundation uses da!a eaminin !'e abili!y o= democracies !o =unc!ionmanae o*ernmen! and u5'old =reedoms !o 5roduce w'a! i! calls !'e Trans=orma!ionnde. T'e mos! recen! inde "ound 1t#e o$erall quality o" democracy #as eroded F!'rou'ou! !'e de*elo5in world ... !'e 0ey com5onen!s o= a =unc!ionin democracy suc'as 5oli!ical 5ar!ici5a!ion and ci*il liber!ies 'a*e su==ered quali!a!i*e erosion ... t#esede$elopments t#reaten to #ollow out t#e quality and substance o" go$ernanceH. 2#e inde3concluded !'a! t#e number o" 1#ig#ly de"ecti$e democracies1 democracies wi!'ins!i!u!ions elec!ions and 5oli!ical cul!ure so =lawed !'a! !'ey no loner quali=ied as realdemocracies #ad rou'ly doubled between *++4 and *+!+. 2#e 5conomist 'ntelligenceUnit6s 'nde3 o" Democracy only =ur!'er con"irmed t#ese "indings. T'e uni! analyses

democracy usin ca!eories =or elec!oral 5rocess 5luralism 5oli!ical 5ar!ici5a!ion 5oli!icalcul!ure =unc!ionin o= o*ernmen! and ci*il liber!ies. ! =ound !'a! democracy was inre!rea! around !'e lobe. Hn all reions !'e a*erae democracy score =or (%1% is lower!'an in (%%8H i! re5or!ed. 'n -! o" !47 countries it studied, t#e democracy score #addeteriorated in !'a! !ime 5eriod and in many o!'ers i! 'ad only remained s!anan!. 2= !'e7" na!ions !'a! i! assessed as 'a*in some sini=ican! democra!ic quali!ies only ( made!'e rade as w'a! !'e )U calls H=ull democraciesH w'ile !'e o!'er +3 were ran0ed only asH=lawed democraciesH because o= serious de=iciencies in many o= !'e areas i! assessed. nLa!in America A=rica Asia and e*en mos! o= A=rica cou5s w'ic' 'ad been a =requen!means o= c'anin o*ernmen!s durin !'e Cold $ar 'ad become nearly e!inc! by !'eearly (%%%s. 0ut between *++4 and *+!+, t#e military grabbed power in 8auritania, 9iger,Guinea:0issau, 0anglades#, (i;i and 8adagascar, among ot#ers. 'n many o!'er de$elopingnations suc# as 8e3ico,


5/90

de*elo5in world !'a! many o= !'ese cou5s were c'eered: in ier las! year !'ousandscelebra!ed !'e mili!ary !a0eo*er in iamey !'e ca5i!al in 5ar! because !'e o*er!'rownleader 'ad been des!royin !'e coun!ryEs democra!ic ins!i!u!ions. 2*erall an analysis o=mili!ary cou5s in de*elo5in na!ions o*er !'e 5as! (% years conduc!ed by Da*id,il*erman my Council on -orein >ela!ions researc' associa!e =ound !'a! in nearly +% 5er

cen! o= cases drawn =rom A=rica La!in America Asia and !'e iddle )as! middleclassmen and women ei!'er ai!a!ed in ad*ance =or !'e cou5 or in 5olls or 5rominen! mediaco*erae a=!erwards e5ressed !'eir su55or! =or !'e army !a0eo*er. 25inion 5olls alsore*eal !'a! t#e quality o" democracy is declining, but also t#at #ow t#e public $iewsdemocracy is deteriorating as well. T'e /arome!er ,eries o= 5olls uses ques!ionnaires !o as0 5eo5le in a rane o= na!ions abou! !'eir *iews on democracy. T'e sur*ey o= !'e A=ricancon!inen! 'as =ound declinin le*els o= su55or! =or democracy in many coun!ries.eanw'ile in >ussia w'ere 'o5e =or democracy was 'i' in !'e early 1""%s !oday !'e ew )uro5e /arome!er s'ows !'a! 'al= o= >ussians belie*e i! is acce5!able !o s!o5 'a*inelec!ions i= !'is decision s!ren!'ens !'e coun!ry. )lsew'ere in )cuador Gua!emala&arauay Colombia &eru 6onduras and icaraua ei!'er a minori!y or only a !iny

maIori!y o= 5eo5le !'in0 democracy is 5re=erable !o any o!'er !y5e o= o*ernmen!. &ollsand s!udies o= ,ou!' Asia 'a*e re*ealed similar dissa!is=ac!ion. n &a0is!an rou'ly % 5ercen! o= res5onden!s in a com5re'ensi*e reional sur*ey said !'e coun!ry s'ould be ruled by!'e army. 5$en in 5ast %sia one o= !'e mos! economically *ibran! reions o= !'e worldpolls re$eal t#e same rising dissatis"action wit# democracy. n =ac! se*eral coun!ries in !'ereion 'a*e de*elo5ed w'a! Ju!9un C'an Jun'an K'u and C'onmin &ar0 w'os!udied da!a =rom !'e reular Asian /arome!er sur*eys 'a*e !ermed Hau!'ori!ariannos!aliaH.

Democracy is declining globally.


6/90

!o &ar!ly -ree and )!'io5ia w'ic' dro55ed =rom &ar!ly -ree !o o! -ree. Amon o!'ercoun!ries s'owin declines were CO!e dE*oire )y5! wanda and ,ri Lan0a.Coun!ries !'a! no!c'ed im5or!an! ains included Colombia Guinea also saw modes!ains wi!' im5ro*emen!s no!ed in Georia


7/90

%2? Global Democracy Low

Democracy is not in retreat – t#e number o" democracies #a$e increased.

9ye >@ –


8/90

Democracy Good


9/90

Democracy Good:Laundry List

Global democratic consolidation pre$ents many scenarios "or war and e3tinction

Diamond -

Larry Diamond senior =ellow a! !'e 6oo*er ns!i!u!ion December 1""+ &romo!in Democracyin !'e 1""%s '!!5:BBwwics.si.eduBsubsi!esBcc5dcB5ubsBdiB1.'!m

2T6)> T6>)AT, T'is 'ardly e'aus!s !'e lis!s o= !'rea!s !o our securi!y and wellbein in !'e comin years anddecades. n !'e =ormer Juosla*ia na!ionalis! aression !ears a! !'e s!abili!y o= )uro5e and could easily s5read. T'e =lowo= illeal drus in!ensi=ies !'rou' increasinly 5ower=ul in!erna!ional crime syndica!es !'a! 'a*e made common cause

wi!' au!'ori!arian reimes and 'a*e u!!erly corru5!ed !'e ins!i!u!ions o= !enuous democra!ic ones. 9uclear,c#emical, and biological weapons continue to proli"erate. 2#e $ery source o" li"e on 5art#, t#e

global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. 8ost o" t#ese new and uncon$entional

t#reats to security are associated wit# or aggra$ated by t#e weakness or absence o"

democracy , wit# its pro$isions "or leali!y accountability 5o5ular so*erein!y andopenness. L),,2, 2- T6) T$)T)T6 C)TU>J T'e e5erience o= !'is cen!uryo==ers im5or!an! lessons. Countries t#at go$ern t#emsel$es in a truly democratic "as#ion donot go to war wit# one anot#er. T'ey do no! aress aains! !'eir nei'bors !o arandi9e!'emsel*es or lori=y !'eir leaders. Democratic go$ernments do not et#nically 1cleanse1t#eir own populations and !'ey are muc' less li0ely !o =ace e!'nic insurency. Democraciesdo no! s5onsor !errorism aains! one ano!'er. 2#ey do not build weapons o" massdestruction to use on or !o !'rea!en one anot#er. Democra!ic coun!ries =orm more reliableo5en and endurin !radin 5ar!ners'i5s. n !'e lon run !'ey o==er be!!er and more s!ableclima!es =or in*es!men!. 2#ey are more en$ironmentally responsible because t#ey mustanswer to t#eir own citizens w'o orani9e !o 5ro!es! !'e des!ruc!ion o= !'eir en*ironmen!s.T'ey are be!!er be!s !o 'onor in!erna!ional !rea!ies since !'ey *alue leal oblia!ions and because !'eir o5enness ma0es i! muc' more di==icul! !o breac' areemen!s in secre!.&recisely because wi!'in !'eir own borders !'ey res5ec! com5e!i!ion ci*il liber!ies 5ro5er!y ri'!s and !'e rule o= law democracies are !'e only reliable =ounda!ion on w'ic'a new world order o= in!erna!ional securi!y and 5ros5eri!y can be buil!.


10/90

Democracy Good – =ar

Democracies donAt go to warBpopular accountability c#ecks military ad$enturism

aransky

a!'an ,'arans0y sraelSs inis!er =or ;erusalem and Dias5ora A==airs and =ormer ,o*ie!dissiden! (%%4 T'e Case =or Democracy 5. 788%

,o i= !'e maIori!y o= 5eo5le in all socie!ies are in'eren!ly 5eacelo*in !'en w'a! is sounique abou! democracies !'a! 0ee5s !'em =rom wain war wi!' one ano!'er T'e answer can be =ound in !'e 5oli!ical mec'anics o= e*ery democra!ic socie!y. Democratic leadersde5end on !'eir 5eo5le. T'ere=ore !'ey 'a$e an enormous incenti$e to satis"y t#e demandso" t#eir constituencies i= !'ey wan! !o s!ay in 5ower. n democracies !'e 5ersonal in!eres!so= !'e 5oli!ical leaders'i5 e*en !'e mos! *enal amon !'em is e==ec!i*ely !ied !oim5ro*in !'e li*es o= !'ose !'ey o*ern. T'ose leaders w#o are percei$ed to be deli$eringpeace and 5ros5eri!y tend to be reelected, w'ile !'ose w'o are no! !end !o be remo*ed =romo==ice. %s t#e Uni!ed &!a!es learned during ietnam, and !'e o*ernmen! o= &pain learnedduring t#e recent war in 'raq no democratic go$ernment will be able to "ig#t a protractedwar t#at t#e ma;ority o" its citizens does not support . T'is is es5ecially !rue w'en !'e cos!so= war are =el! close !o 'ome. " democratic peoples belie$e t#ere is an alternati$e to war Rw'e!'er !'a! al!erna!i*e is real or imained is imma!erialR !'ey will demand t#at t#eirgo$ernment pursue it. And a democra!ic o*ernmen! !'a! does no! 'eed !'e will o= !'e 5eo5le will sooner or la!er be re5laced by one !'a! does. T'us !'e cri!ical =ac!or !'a! 5re*en!s democra!ic na!ions =rom =i'!in aains! eac' o!'er is no! *alues !'a! are 5ar!icular !o democra!ic 5eo5les bu! ra!'er !'e =ac! !'a! !'e 5ower o= a democra!ic o*ernmen! isul!ima!ely de5enden! on !'e 5o5ular will. $'en !wo democra!ic s!a!es are =aced wi!' anissue !'a! can 5o!en!ially lead !o con=lic! !'eir leaders w'ose own 5ower de5ends onci!i9ens w'o see war as a las! resor! will do e*ery!'in 5ossible !o a*oid war and reac' acom5romise. -or !'is reason democratic leaders also #a$e a propen sity towardsappeasement. T'eir =irs! ins!inc! is !o see0 a 5eace=ul solu!ion =irs! and !'ey are slow !orelinquis' !'is a55roac'. $ar is almos! always seen as an e5ensi*e disru5!i*e las! resor!and =ew democra!ic leaders embrace !'e 5ros5ec! wi!' any!'in o!'er !'an e!remecau!ion. ndeed so s!ron is !'e 5o5ular an!i5a!'y !o war !'a! democra!ic socie!ies are a! adisad*an!ae w'en con=ron!in !'rea!s !'a! require 5reem5!i*e mili!ary ac!ion. n res5onse!o !'eir *o!ers mos! democra!ic leaders will be in'ibi!ed by a 5aci=ic re=le be slow !o ac!and be o*erly cau!ious. T'is 5ro5ensi!y =or a55easemen! can be e!remely danerous i= 5o!en!ial !'rea!s !'a! could 'a*e been ni55ed in !'e bud are ins!ead allowed !o row moredanerous.

Democracy sol$es great power war – more likely to negotiate, and w#en t#ey do "ig#t t#ey

c#oose easy targets2arzi 7

,'a' &ro=essor o= )conomic A==airs /radley Democra!ic &eace lliberal Democracy andCon=lic! /e'a*ior n!erna!ional ;ournal on $orld &eace *ol (4

/ueno de equi!a orrow ,i*erson and ,mi!' are amon !'e =ew w'o 'a*e sou'! !oo*ercome !'e conce5!ual dilemmas no!ed abo*e. ,5eci=ically !'ey 'a*e 5ro*ided insi'!son !'e lin0 be!ween ins!i!u!ions and =orein 5olicy c'oices wi!' re=erence !o in!erna!ionaldis5u!es and con=lic!s. T'ey =ind !'a! democra!ic leaders w'en =aced wi!' a c'oice are


11/90

more li0ely !o s'i=! rea!er resources !o war e==or!s !'an leaders o= !'e au!ocra!ico*ernmen!s because 5oli!ical sur*i*al o= !'e elec!ed democra!ic reime demandssuccess=ul 5olicy 5er=ormance es5ecially as !'e winnin coali!ion rows. T'usdemocra!ic reimes !end !o 'a*e a mili!ary ede o*er au!ocra!ic reimes in war because o=!'e e!ra e==or!s required. Also Hdemocratic leaders only c#oose to "ig#t w#en t#ey are

con"ident o" $ictory. /t#erwise t#ey pre"er to negotiate.H M((N /ueno de equi!a and 'iscolleaues conclude Democrats make relati$ely unattracti$e targets because domesticreselection pressures cause leaders to mobilize resources "or t#e war e""ort. 2#is makes it

#arder "or ot#er states to target t#em "or aggression. 'n addition to trying #arder t#an

autocrats, democrats are more selecti$e in t#eir c#oice o" targets. De"eat typically leads to

domestic replacement "or democrats, so t#ey only initiate war w#en t#ey e3pect to win.T'ese !wo =ac!ors lead !o !'e in!erac!ion be!ween 5oli!ies !'a! is o=!en !ermed !'edemocra!ic 5eace. %utocrats need a slig#t e3pected ad$antage o$er ot#er autocraticad$ersaries in de$oting additional resources to t#e war e""ort. 'n order to initiate war,

democrats need o$erw#elming odds o" $ictory bu! !'a! does no! mean !'ey are 5assi*e./ecause democra!s use !'eir resources =or !'e war e==or! ra!'er !'an reser*e !'em !oreward bac0ers !'ey are enerally able i*en !'eir selec!ion cri!eria =or =i'!in !o

o*erw'elm au!ocracies w'ic' resul!s in s'or! and rela!i*ely less cos!ly wars. Je!democracies "ind it #ard to o$erw#elm ot#er democracies because t#ey also try #ard . 'n

general, democracies make unattracti$e targets, particularly "or ot#er democracies. )ence,

democratic states rarely attack one anot#er. M(3N


12/90

Democratic ummel means !'ose s!a!es !'a! ?Fem5'asi9e indi*idual =reedom and ci*il liber!ies and!'e ri'!s associa!ed wi!' !'e com5e!i!i*e and o5en elec!ion o= leaders@ M>ummel 1"83 55.(7R(8N. /ne study 5ro*idin e*idence in su55or! o= !'is conclusion was conduc!ed by/abs! w'o e3amined !!4 ma;or wars "rom !7>- to !-!and "ound t#at no wars E#adF been"oug#t between independent nations wit# electi$e go$ernments M/abs! 1"7( 5. ++N. nano!'er in*es!ia!ion Doyle e3amined liberal regimes dating back to t#e eig#teent#century and "ound t#at ?e*en !'ou' liberal s!a!es 'a*e become in*ol*ed in numerous warswi!' nonliberal s!a!es constitutionally secure liberal states #a$e yet to engage in war wit#one an ot#er MDoyle 1"83 5. (13N. Doyle de=ined liberal s!a!es as ?5oli!ies !'a! are e!ernally so*erein. .. Fw'ere ci!i9ens 5ossess Iuridical ri'!s.. . Fand are ruled by are5resen!a!i*e o*ernmen!@ Mibid.N. A !'ird s!udy was conduc!ed by ao9 and AbdolaliM1"8"N w'o re5or!ed !'a! w'ile democracies are no more 5eace=ul !'an o!'er s!a!es !'eyalmos! always o !o war wi!' nondemocra!ic reimes ra!'er !'an o!'er democracies. T'ere'as been some deba!e abou! w'e!'er !'e rela!ions'i5 be!ween democracy and 5eace iss5urious. -or eam5le aruin !'a! socie!ies wi!' rea!er weal!' 'a*e more !o lose and are!'ere=ore reluc!an! !o o !o war one analys! sues!s !'a! !'e correla!ion may be an ar!i=ac!o= !'e 'i' le*el o= economic de*elo5men! !'a! c'arac!eri9es mos! democra!ic coun!riesMueller 1"8" 5. (4N. Je! empirical studies report t#at t#e relations#ip between democracyand peace #olds w#en statistical controls "or wealt# and ot#er $ariables are introduced.,!udies by ao9 and >usse!! M1""( 55. (4+R4W 1""1 5. 3%N demons!ra!e !'a! 5eaceamon democracies canno! be e5lained by le*el or ra!e o= de*elo5men! by 5oli!icals!abili!y or by !'e lac0 o= common borders. Also wi!' res5ec! !o !'e im5ac! o= weal!' andeconomic de*elo5men! )mber )mber and >usse!! M1""( 5. +7+N correc!ly obser*e !'a!!'is does no! e5lain !'e 5eace !'a! eis!ed amon democracies 5rior !o indus!riali9a!ion. or does i! e5lain !'e ou!brea0 o= $orld $ar w'ic' 5i!!ed@ Xad*anced ca5i!alis!..

s!a!es aains! eac' o!'er@

Democratic peace t#eory is soundBt#e preponderance o" studies and t#e decline o" con"lict

in t#e -+s pro$es

)alperin

or!on 6al5erin e! al ,enior ice &residen! o= !'e Cen!er =or American &roress and Direc!or o= !'e 25en ,ocie!y &olicy Cen!er (%%+ T'e Democracy Ad*an!ae 5. 1(


13/90

Coun!er !o !'e e5ec!a!ions o= !'e 5re*ailin sc'ool a great deal o" re searc# in t#e !--+s ont#e political dimension o" con"lict #as re$ealed a power"ul pattern o" a democratic peace.

Democracies rarely, i" e$er, go to war wit# eac# ot#er. T'is 5a!!ern 'as 'eld =rom !'ees!ablis'men! o= !'e =irs! modern democracies in !'e nine!een!' cen!ury !o !'e 5resen!. Asan e*errea!er s'are o= !'e worldSs s!a!es become democra!ic !'e im5lica!ions =or lobal

5eace are 5ro=ound. ndeed as t#e number o" democracies #as been increasing, ma;orcon"licts around t#e world Hincluding ci$il warsI #a$e declined s#arply. &ince !--*, t#ey #a$e"allen by two:t#irds numberin Ius! 13 as o= (%%3.


14/90


15/90

Democracy Good – 5n$ironment

Democracy is key to en$ironmental protection

anicke -4

ar!in ;anic0e &ro=essor o= Com5ara!i*e &olicy and 6ead o= !'e >esearc' Uni! =or)n*ironmen!al &olicy a! !'e -ree Uni*ersi!y o= /erlin 1"" Democracy and !'e )n*ironmen! 5. 71

2#at democracy in eneral is a better 5recondi!ion "or en$ironmental policy t#anaut#oritarian rule is e3tremely plausible. T'ere seems !o be no need =or e5lana!ion. (romcomparati$e researc# we are aware o" t#e poor record on pollution control in t#e "ormer

communist countries. 2#e pre$ious rig#tist dictators#ips in sout#ern 5urope M=rom Tur0ey !o&or!ualN #a$e also s'own similar records. ! is also easy on !'eore!ical rounds !o de*elo5 5lausible 'y5o!'eses abou! !'e causal connec!ion be!ween success=ul Mor a! leas! be!!erNen*ironmen!al 5olicy and democracy. 5n$ironmental policy goals are usually in directopposition to current economic trends. /ppositional rig#ts are, t#ere"ore, an important

resource "or t#e success"ul "ormulation and imple mentation o" greenA policy. Critical roles"or science and t#e media can also, in !'is res5ec! be as important as ci*il ri'!s or acom5e!i!i*e 5ar!y sys!em.


16/90

Democracy Good – &tate (ailure

Democracy pre$ents state "ailure

)alperin

or!on 6al5erin e! al ,enior ice &residen! o= !'e Cen!er =or American &roress and Direc!or o= !'e 25en ,ocie!y &olicy Cen!er (%%+ T'e Democracy Ad*an!ae 5. "7

Democratic go$ernment is also a bulwark against state "ailure R!'e colla5se o= a cen!rals!a!eSs abili!y !o main!ain 5oli!ical order ou!side !'e ca5i!al ci!y.1" &tate "ailure usuallyresults in $iolent ci$il con"lict and is !y5i=ied by !'e e5eriences o= ,omalia Liberia ,ierraLeone /osnia and A='anis!an in !'e 1 ""%s. % compre#ensi$e analysis o" 7 potentialpredic tors o" state "ailure =rom 1"++ !o 1"" "ound t#at lack o" democracy was one o" t#et#ree most importan!.(% MT'e !wo o!'ers were ma!erial well bein as measured by in=an!mor!ali!y ra!es and !'e le*el o= !rade.N n o!'er words t#e stronger a countryAs democraticinstitutions, t#e lower t#e like li#ood t#at it will become a "ailed state.


17/90

Democracy Good – 2errorism

Democracy eliminates t#e need "or terrorism: many non:$iolent outlets "or e3pression

Li

uan ?Does Democracy &romo!e or >educe Transna!ional Terroris! nciden!s@ De5ar!men! o=&oli!ical ,cience T'e &ennsyl*ania ,!a!e Uni*ersi!y'!!5:BBwww.5sci.un!.eduBIboo0sBTerror/ibY=ilesB,!a!is!ical(%,!udies(%o=(%TerrorismBLiDoes(%Democracy(%&romo!e.5d=

2ne arumen! in !'e democracy!errorism li!era!ure 5osi!s !'a! as5ec!s o= democracy reduceterrorism. 'n nondemocratic societies, t#e lack o" opportunities "or political participation

induces political grie$ances and dissatis"action among dissenters, moti$ating terrorism

MCrens'aw 1"81 383N. n con!ras! in democratic societies, "ree and "air elections ensure t#atrulers can be remo$ed and t#at desirable social c#anges can be broug#t about by $oters,

reducing t#e need to resort to $iolence M,c'mid 1""(N. Democratic rules enable non$iolentresolution o" political con"lict. Democracies permit dissenters to e3press t#eir policy

pre"erences and seek redress M>oss 1""3N. Di""erent social groups are able to participate in

t#e political process to "urt#er t#eir interest t#roug# peace"ul means suc' as *o!in and=ormin 5oli!ical 5ar!ies M)uban0 and $einber 1""4 (%%1N. &ince democracy lowers t#ecost o" ac#ie$ing political goals t#roug# legal means, groups "ind costly illegal terrorist

acti$ities less attracti$e M>oss 1""3W )yerman 1""8N. $ide democra!ic 5ar!ici5a!ion also'as bene=icial consequences !'a! remain larely unno!iced in !'e li!era!ure. To !'e e!en!!'a! democratic participation increases political e""icacy o" citizens, terrorist groups will beless success"ul recruiting newmembers in democracy t#an in autocracy. T'is may reduce !'enumber o= !erroris! a!!ac0s in democracy. $i!'in !'e con!e! o= !ransna!ional !errorismwide democratic participation #elps to reduce incenti$es o" domestic groups to engage in

terrorist acti$ities aains! =orein !are!s in a coun!ry. =#en citizens #a$e grie$ances against"oreign targets, greater political participation under a democratic system allows t#em to e3ert

more in"luence on t#eir own go$ernment so t#at t#ey can seek "a$orable policy c#anges orcompensation more success"ully. oining a terrorist group and attacking t#e "oreign target

become less appealing options. To !'e e!en! !'a! democratic participation leads to publictolerance o" counterterrorist e""orts, a democratic go$ernment will be more e""ecti$e stopping

a $ariety o" terrorist attacks, includin !'ose by domes!ic !erroris!s aains! =orein !are!sas well as !'ose commi!!ed by =orein !erroris!s in !'e coun!ry.


18/90

%2? Democracy 0ad – 2errorism

2#e claim t#at ci$il liberties encourage terrorism is wrong

Li

uan ?Does Democracy &romo!e or >educe Transna!ional Terroris! nciden!s@ De5ar!men! o=&oli!ical ,cience T'e &ennsyl*ania ,!a!e Uni*ersi!y'!!5:BBwww.5sci.un!.eduBIboo0sBTerror/ibY=ilesB,!a!is!ical(%,!udies(%o=(%TerrorismBLiDoes(%Democracy(%&romo!e.5d=

% second argument in t#e literature claims t#at democracy encourages terrorism. 2#is is

based on t#e premise t#at democracies pro$ide greater ci$il liberties Me.. ,c'mid 1""(N. /yuaran!eein ci*il liber!ies democracies allow!erroris!s !o become orani9ed andmaneu*er easily reducin !'e cos!s o= conduc!in !erroris! ac!i*i!ies M>oss 1""3W )yerman1""8N. )5ansi*e and secure ci*il liber!ies also ma0e i! 'arder =or !'e leal sys!ems indemocracies !o con*ic! !erroris!s and =or democra!ic o*ernmen!s !o 5re*en! or re!alia!eaains! !errorism M,c'mid 1""(W )uban0 and $einber 1""4 (%%1N. As Crens'aw M1"81383N no!es ?T'e desire !o 5ro!ec! ci*il liber!ies cons!rains securi!y measures.@ 2#e#ypot#esized e""ect o" ci$il liberties 'owe*er in$ol$es two con"ounding issues. -irs! ci$illiberties may also generate a mitigating e""ect on terrorism. Citizens en;oying more ci$il

liberties are more likely to in"luence t#e political process success"ully. To !'e e!en! !'a! ci$illiberties reduce political grie$ances, t#ey may also reduce terrorist acti$ities. T'ere=ore ci$illiberties alone do not #elp us separate t#e positi$e and negati$e e""ects o" democracy, eit#er

t#eoretically or empirically. ,econd press "reedom, as part and parcel o" ci$il liberties, mayinduce possible terrorist incident reporting bias and create an additional incenti$e "or

terrorism. 2#e bias in t#e reporting o" terrorist incidents between di""erent regime types #as

been widely recogni9ed Msee e.. ,c'mid 1""(W )uban0 and$einber 1""4W ,andler 1""+WLi and ,c'aub (%%4N. 2errorist incidents are more likely to be reported in democraticcountries but less so in nondemocratic ones. 2#is is so because democratic countries place

"ewer restrictions on t#e media, t#e less restrained news:seeking media in democracies tendto pro$ide more e3tensi$e co$erage o" terrorist e$ents or bo!'. n con!ras! reporting o" suc#incidents in nondemocratic countries is #ea$ily controlled and censored. ,ince da!a on!erroris! inciden!s are collec!ed =rom o5en sources one is li0ely !o conclude !'a!democracies 'a*e more !erroris! inciden!s. 5$en i" nondemocratic countries e3perience t#esame number o" incidents, obser$ers may ne$er "ind out, using data collected "rom open

sources. 2#e reporting bias may "alsely cause one to obser$e a positi$e correlation between

t#e le$el o" ci$il liberties and t#e number o" terrorist e$ents.


19/90

%2? 2ransition =ars

%ut#oritarianism leads to ine$itable recurring transition crises

)alperin

or!on 6al5erin e! al ,enior ice &residen! o= !'e Cen!er =or American &roress and Direc!or o= !'e 25en ,ocie!y &olicy Cen!er (%%+ T'e Democracy Ad*an!ae 5. +%+1

Ada5!abili!y.


20/90

%2? 2ransition =ars – 0acksliding /utweig#s

0acksliding leads to a "ar greater risk o" war

;ames Lee Jay 5ro=essor o= 5oli!ical science a! anderbil! Uni*ersi!y A5ril 1"-7 ;ournal o=Democracy

ans=ield and ,nyder 'a*e 5roduced a serious cri!ique w'ic' canno! be brus'ed asidewi!' sim5le s'or! rebu!!als. 2ne com5re'ensi*e re*iew o= !'is issue re*eals !'a! w'ile i! is!rue !'a! democra!i9in reimes are more war5rone !'an s!able reimes states in$ol$ed intransitions to autocracy are e$en more war:prone.T'is same analysis also =inds !'a!Hdemocratizing1 regimes t#at do get in$ol$ed in con"lict typically #a$e not mo$ed $ery "ar int#e direction o" democracy. n o!'er words !'ey are s!ill qui!e au!ocra!ic. Ano!'er de!ailedanalysis o= !'is con!ro*ersy =inds aain !'a! transitions to autocracy are more consistentlyassociated wit# con"lict t#an are transitions to democracy. And e*en more !o !'e 5oin! !'issecond analysis concludes !'a! transitions to democracy are likely to be dangerous only wi!'in a 5ar!icular con!e! !'a! is i" t#e states undergoing suc# transitions are surrounded by or 'a$e important relations#ips wit# quite autocratic states. T'e im5lica!ion o= !'is ando!'er s!udies is !'a! !'e H5oli!ical dis!anceH Mor !'e di==erence in reime !y5eN is a crucialde!erminan! o= con=lic! be!ween s!a!es. = !ransi!ions !oward democracy increase 5oli!icaldis!ances or di==erences *isZ*is surroundin s!a!es !'en !'ose !ransi!ions !o democracymay indeed be associa!ed wi!' con=lic!. /u! i! is no! a55aren!ly !'e !ransi!ions !'emsel*es!'a! cause !'e con=lic!. ,uc' e*idence also sues!s !'a! i! is danerous !o encouraedemocra!i9a!ion only i= suc' a 5olicy succeeds in !oo limi!ed a =as'ion lea*in newlydemocra!ic s!a!es surrounded by more au!ocra!ic s!a!es.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v008/8.2ray.html#top%23tophttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v008/8.2ray.html#top%23tophttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v008/8.2ray.html#top%23tophttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v008/8.2ray.html#top%23top


21/90

Democracy 0ad


22/90

!9C

Democratic peace t#eory is wrong: democracies do go to war

Layne 7

C'ris!o5'er &ro=essor TQ AV American )m5ire: A Deba!e 5. "4=ilsonian ideology dri$es t#e %merican 5mpire because its proponents posit t#at t#e United

&tates must use its military power to e3tend democracy abroad. )ere, t#e ideology o" 5mpire

rests on assumptions t#at are not supported by t#e "acts. /ne reason t#e arc#itects o" 5mpire

c#ampion democracy promotion is because t#ey belie$e in t#e so:called democratic peace

t#eory w'ic' 'olds !'a! democra!ic s!a!es do no! =i'! o!'er democracies. 2r as &residen!Geore $. /us' 5u! i! wi!' 'is cus!omary eloquence Hdemocracies donE! warW democraciesare 5eace=ul.H13 2#e democratic peace t#eory is t#e probably t#e most o$er#yped andundersupported 1t#eory1 e$er to be concocted by %merican academics. n =ac! it is not at#eory at all. Jat#er it is a t#eology t#at suits t#e conceits o" =ilsonian true belie$ers:

especially t#e neoconser$ati$es w#o #a$e been ad$ocating %merican 5mpire since t#e early

!--+s. %s serious sc#olars #a$e s#own , #owe$er,t#e #istorical record does not support t#e

democratic peace t#eory.131 2n !'e con!rary i! s'ows !'a! democracies do not actdi""erently toward ot#er democracies t#an t#ey do toward nondemocratic states. =#enimportant national interests are at stake, democracies not only #a$e t#reatened to use "orce

against ot#er democracies, but, in "act, democracies #a$e gone to war wit# ot#er democracies .

Democracies start more wars: statistical analysis pro$es

)enderson *

)rrol 6enderson Assis!an! &ro=essor De5!. o= &oli!ical ,cience a! !'e Uni*ersi!y o= -lorida(%%( Democracy and $ar T'e )nd o= an llusion 5. 14

Are Democracies ore &eace=ul !'an ondemocracies wi!' >es5ec! !o n!ers!a!e $ars T'e resul!s indica!e !'a! democracies are more war:prone t#an non:democracies Mw'e!'erdemocracy is coded dic'o!omously or con!inuouslyN and !'a! democracies are more likelyto initiate interstate wars. 2#e "indings are obtained "rom analyses t#at control "or a #ost o"political, economic, and cultural "actors t#at #a$e been implicated in t#e onset o" interstate

war and =ocus e5lici!ly on s!a!e le*el =ac!ors ins!ead o= sim5ly in=errin s!a!e le*el 5rocesses =rom dyadic le*el obser*a!ions as was done in earlier s!udies Me.. 2neal and>usse!! 1""7W 2neal and >ay 1""7N. T'e resul!s im5ly !'a! democratic enlargement ismore likely to increase t#e probability o" war "or states since democracies are more li0ely !o become in*ol*ed inRand !o ini!ia!eRin!ers!a!e wars.

2ransitions to democracy lead to war

8an"ield and &nyder *

)dward D. ans=ield 6um >osen &ro=essor o= &oli!ical ,cience and CoDirec!or o= !'e

C'ris!o5'er 6. /rowne Cen!er =or n!erna!ional &oli!ics a! !'e Uni*ersi!y o= &ennsyl*ania and;ac0 ,nyder >ober! and >enee /el=er &ro=essor o= n!erna!ional >ela!ions a! ColumbiaUni*ersi!y ,5rin (%%( n!erna!ional 2rani9a!ion

n 5re*ious researc' we re5or!ed !'a! states undergoing democratic transitions weresubstantially more likely to participate in e3ternal wars t#an were states w#ose regimesremained unc#anged or c'aned in an au!ocra!ic direc!ion. $e arued !'a! elites in newlydemocratizing states o=!en use nationalist appeals to attract mass support wi!'ou! submi!!in

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_organization/v056/56.2mansfield.html#FOOT6%23FOOT6http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_organization/v056/56.2mansfield.html#FOOT6%23FOOT6http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_organization/v056/56.2mansfield.html#FOOT6%23FOOT6


23/90

!o =ull democra!ic accoun!abili!y and !'a! !'e institutional weakness o= !ransi!ional s!a!escreates t#e opportunity "or suc# war:causing strategies to succeed . 6owe*er !'ese earlier s!udies didno! =ully address !'e circums!ances under w'ic' !ransi!ions are mos! li0ely !o 5reci5i!a!e war and !'ey did no! !a0e in!oaccoun! *arious im5or!an! causes o= war. )qually some cri!ics worried !'a! !'e !ime 5eriods o*er w'ic' we measured !'ee==ec!s o= democra!i9a!ion were some!imes so lon !'a! e*en!s occurrin a! !'e beinnin o= a 5eriod would be unli0ely !oin=luence =orein 5olicy a! i!s end. 7 5mploying a more re"ined researc# design t#an in our prior

work we aim 'ere !o iden!i=y more 5recisely !'e condi!ions under w'ic' democra!i9a!ions!imula!es 'os!ili!ies. =e "ind t#at !'e #eig#tened danger o" war grows primarily out o" t#etransition "rom an autocratic regime to one t#at is partly democratic. T'e s5ec!er o= wardurin !'is 5'ase o= democra!i9a!ion looms es5ecially lare w'en o*ernmen!alins!i!u!ions includin !'ose reula!in 5oli!ical 5ar!ici5a!ion are es5ecially wea0. Under!'ese condi!ions elites commonly employ nationalist r#etoric to mobilize mass support butt#en become drawn into !'e belligerent "oreign policies unleas#ed by t#is 5rocess. $e =ind incon!ras! !'a! !ransi!ions !'a! quic0ly culmina!e in a =ully co'eren! democracy are muc' less 5erilous. 8 -ur!'er ourresul!s re=u!e !'e *iew !'a! !ransi!ional democracies are sim5ly in*i!in !are!s o= a!!ac0 because o= !'eir !em5orarywea0ness. n =ac! !'ey !end !o be !'e ini!ia!ors o= war. $e also re=u!e !'e *iew !'a! any reime c'ane is li0ely !o

5reci5i!a!e !'e ou!brea0 o= war. $e =ind !'a! transitions toward democracy are signi"icantly more likelyto generate #ostilities t#an transitions toward autocracy.

%ssuming democracy limits $iolence ;usti"ies $iolence against backsliders

Little MAdrian Lec!urer in &oli!ical T'eory Uni*ersi!y o= elbourne ,e5!ember'!!5:BBaus5sa.anu.edu.auB5roceedinsB5ublica!ionsBLi!!le5a5er.5d=N

T'e 5oin! a! w'ic' democra!ic s!a!es decide !o eercise *iolence is !'en a subIec!i*e one a ma!!er o= 5oli!ical decision ra!'er !'an e!'ical cer!ain!y. 2= course !'a! is a ra!'er di==icul!messae !o sell !o a democra!ic elec!ora!e bu! ne*er!'eless i! re5resen!s !'e realis! calculus w'ic' im5els 5oli!icians and o*ernmen!s in !'eir decision !o ac! or no! in a *iolen!=as'ion. T'e arumen! !'en becomes one o= 'ow one decides w'ic' *iolence # in bo!' in! erna!ional and domes!ic 5oli!ics is !oo un5ala!able =or us !o ! olera!e. n in!erIec!in in !'edeba!e on *iolence ;o'n


24/90

source o= 5oli!ical lei!imacy =or !'e eercise o= au!'ori!y. Accordin !o !'is 5ers5ec!i*e democracy s!ands in s!ar0 con!ras! !o w'a! i! is no! !'a! is sys!ems w'ere law and au!'ori!yo5era!e arbi!rarily or !'rou' !yranny and coercion. 6owe*er !'e idea o= democracy as some!'in w'ic' 'as been Xac'ie*edS is 5roblema!ic i= no! an!i5oli!ical. $e see in manyliberal democra!ic discourses !'e idea !'a! democracy is some!'in w'ic' needs !o be encouraed or e5or!ed =rom !'e $es! !o less 5oli! ically and economically de*elo5ed socie!ies.ncreasinly =or eam5le we see o*ernmen!s in !'e $es! couc'in !'eir !erms =or aid in !'e lanuae o= democracy and Xood o*ernanceS. T'e im5lica!ions o= !'is 0ind o=discourse are clear: !'e $es! 'as democracy i! is a ood !'in and !'e res! o= !'e world s'ould =ollow !'a! lead. T'is =or i!s su55or!ers is an aenda =or lobal 5eace oodo*ernance and usually !'e es!ablis'men! o= s5aces !o allow mar0e!s !o o5era!e =reely. Aruably !'ou' i! is an an!i5oli!ical 5ers5ec!i*eW i! raises n o ques!ions abou! !'e na!ure o=democracy in !'e $es! and !'e massi*e di==erences be!ween liberal democra!ic socie!ies. ! does no! ques!ion =undamen!ally w'a! we mean by democracy or sues! !'a! liberaldemocracies need !o de*elo5 and im5ro*e !'eir 5oli!ical sys!ems or socioeconomic condi!ions. ! =ails !o reconise !'a! democracy is an Xun=inis'ed 5roIec!S Miller (%%(N.


25/90

*9C Little 53t

Little says backsliding is ;ust political co$er "or inter$ention into Mrd world countries wit#

large amounts o" natural resources t#at re"use to comply wit# our e3ploiti$e policies o"

opening trade barrier internationally w#ile erecting t#em at #ome: democratic peace

t#eory legitimizes t#is $iolence by claiming t#at i" t#e Mrd world were only democratic, no

$iolence would be necessary

2#is makes $iolence and war ine$itable

Little

MAdrian Lec!urer in &oli!ical T'eory Uni*ersi!y o= elbourne ,e5!ember'!!5:BBaus5sa.anu.edu.auB5roceedinsB5ublica!ionsBLi!!le5a5er.5d=N

As recen!ly as !en years ao *iolence was o=!en !'ou'! !o be a nelec!ed conce5! indemocra!ic !'eory M


26/90

*9C Democracy =ar

Democracy causes war:

%.I &tatistical e$idence: )enderson says controlling "or all "actors democracies #a$e been

most likely to go to war: pre"er our e$idence, it is t#e only one w#ic# controls "oreconomics, politics and social $alues

0.I &el":"ul"illing prop#ecy

C#o;nacki 4

,*en &ro=essor /erlin -reie Democra!ic $ars 5. 3+oreo*er an acti$e policy o" democratization mig#t not only accelerate $iolent processesbut t#e norms o" democracy and #uman rig#ts may also be a prete3t "or pursuing power

interests by military means Mc!. ,'annon (%%%W ,c'Ielse! (%%1N. 2aking into account t#e:growt# in military inter$ention capabilities, unilateral options "or action on t#e part o"

power"ul states, and t#e e3isting power asym: metries in t#e international system on t#e one

#and, and t#e rele$ance o" $iolent intrastate and substate con"licts "or international politics

in an era o" interdependence on t#e ot#er, t#ere is little reason to assume t#at t#e number o"

military inter$entions will decrease in t#e "uture. A =inal ris0 !o democra!ic 5eace arises!'rou' norm and *aluebased demarca!ion 5rocesses and war5romo!in 5a!!erns o=arumen!a!ion *isa*is nondemocra!ic sys!ems. 2#e more democratic states identi"yt#emsel$es in contrast to potential ad$ersaries and t#e less t#e cost::bene"it argument comes

to #ear in t#e "ace o" tec#nological superiority, t#e more t#e risk o" war increases Md. uller(oo(a 5. +8N. A! !'e same !ime i! s'ould be no!ed !'a! superior military capabilities ,normati$e orienta: tions and global liberalization pressures could be regarded as potential

t#reats to non:democratic states and regions. 2#is could result in t#e emergence o" new

images o" w#at an enemy is and a 6democracy : speci"ic security dilemma6 $is:a:$is t#e rest o"

t#e world HUller (oo(a 55. +"%N. 2#e 6clas# o" ci$ilizations6 en*isaed by ,amuel

6un!in!on could t#us e$ol$e as a sel":"ul"illing prop#ecy as it begins to in#abit t#e securitypolicies o" =estern democracies. % policy o" democratic inter$entionism would not only

con"ront democracies wit# incalculable security risks but mig#t also undermine t#eir own

nonnati$e claims.

C.I 9on:democracy wars

Daase 4

C'ris!o5'er C'air in n!erna!ional 2ranisa!ion Uni*ersi!y o= -ran0=ur! Democra!ic $ars 5.77

n w'a! =ollows will =ocus on !'ree reasons w'y democracies mi'! be 5eace=ul !o eac'o!'er bu! abrasi*e or e*en bellicose !owards non democracies. T'e =irs! reason is anins!i!u!ional one: domestic institutions dampen con"licts among democracies but aggra$atecon"licts between democracies and non:democracies. T'e second reason is a norma!i*eone: s#ared social $alues and political ideals pre$ent wars between democracies butmakewars between democracies and non:democracies more likely and sa$age. T'e !'ird reason isa s!ruc!ural one: t#e searc# "or sa"ety encourages democracies to create security communitiesby renouncing $iolence among t#emsel$es but demands asserti$eness against outsiders and

t#e willingness to use military means i" enlargement o" t#at community cannot be ac#ie$ed

peace"ully. To illus!ra!e !'is will draw mainly on !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es as an eam5le=ollowin a Tocque*lllean !radi!ion bu! 0nowin !'a! no! all democracies be'a*e in !'e


27/90

same way or !'a! !'e U, is !'e only war=i'!in democracy. ! is clear !'a! !'e 'y5o!'esesare =irs! conIec!ures and !'a! more case s!udies and quan!i!a!i*e !es!s are needed !o reac'more eneral conclusions .

D.I Di$ersionary wars

Daase 4

C'ris!o5'er C'air in n!erna!ional 2ranisa!ion Uni*ersi!y o= -ran0=ur! Democra!ic $ars 5.77

6owe*er !'ere is a con!radic!ory e==ec! as well. Democratic go$ernments are tempted touse military $iolence prior to elections i= !'eir 5ublic es!eem is in decline and i= !'ey mus!=ear no! bein reelec!ed M2s!rom andob 1"8W >usse!! 1""%W in!9 and >usse!! 1""(Win!9 and Ge9a 1""3N. n doin so t#ey count on t#e 6rally round t#e "lag6 e""ect , w#ic# isusually o" s#ort duration but long enoug# to make t#e public "orget economic misery or

go$ernmental misbe#a$iour in order to in"luence tig#t elections results in "a$our o" t#e

incumbent. 2#is di$ersionary e""ect o" war"are is especially attracti$e to democracies sincet#ey #a$e no ot#er means at t#eir disposal to di""use discontent or suppress internal con"lict .

2#ere"ore, t#e use o" military "orce "or di$ersion ary purposes is generally 6a pat#ology o"

democratic systems6 MGel5i 1""7 5. (8%N.

5.I C#ain:ganging

Gowa --

;oanne &ro=essor &rince!on /allo!s and /ulle!s: T'e )lusi*e Democra!ic &eace ues!ia-or !'ese reasons a s!ra!ey o= enlargement seems ill:suited to U.&. interests in !'e 1""%sand beyond. 2#e democratic peace seems to be a by:product o" a now e3tinct period in worldpolitics. n addi!ion an enlargement strategy t#reatens to endanger rat#er t#an en#ance U.&.security in t#e long run. 't risks engaging t#e U nited & tates in "oreign con"licts t#at it cannotresol$e, and as a resul! i! risks t#e ability o" t#e U nited & tates to make crediblecommitments w#en it embarks on inter$entions abroad . T'is sues!s !'a! a more

!radi!ional s!ra!ey based on buildin common in!eres!s mi'! ma0e !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es be!!er o== !'an a =orein 5olicy desined !o cons!ruc! democracies abroad.


28/90

*9C %2? &ol$es =ar

Democratic


29/90

was negati$ely a""ected by t#e ongoing %merican debate abou! w'e!'er !o o !o war aains!raq. T'e Conressional 'earins 5rior !o !'e Gul= $ar are a ood illus!ra!ion. $'ile 5oli!ical leaders 5ublicly deba!ed !'e ad*an!aes and disad*an!aes o= sanc!ions and =orce!o ob!ain !'e libera!ion o= CA &2LTCAL ,C)C)>))$ T'e -lawed Loic o= Democra!ic &eace T'eory *ol. "7 issue 4 5. 11

,econd any public a$ersion to incurring t#e costs o" war may be o$erw#elmed by t#e e""ectso" nationalism. n addi!ion !o !'e row!' o= democracy one o" t#e most striking "eatures o"t#e modern period is t#at people #a$e come to identi"y t#emsel$es abo*e all wit# t#e nationstate. T'is iden!i=ica!ion 'as been so 5ower=ul !'a! ordinary citizens #a$e repeatedlydemonstrate d a willingness to "ig#t and die "or t#e continued e3istence o" t#eir state and t#e

security o" t#eir co:nationals . T'ere are !'en ood reasons !o belie*e !'a! i= !'e na!ionalin!eres! is !'ou'! !o be a! s!a0e as i! is in mos! in!ers!a!e con=lic!s calculations o" costs willnot "igure prominently in t#e publicAs decision process. T'ird democratic leaders are aslikely to lead as to "ollow public opinion . &ince nationalism imbues people wit# a power"ul

spirit o" sel":sacri"ice, it is acti$ely culti$ated by political elites in t#e knowledge t#at only

#ig#ly moti$ated armies and producti$e societies will pre$ail in modern war"are Me.. &osen1""3N. Democratically elected leaders are likely to be well placed to culti$ate nationalism ,especially because t#eir go$ernments are o"ten percei$ed as more representati$e and

legitimate t#an aut#oritarian regimes. %ny call to de"end or spread our way o" li"e , "or

e3ample, is likely to #a$e a strong resonance in democratic polities, and indeed t#e #istorical

record suggests t#at wars #a$e o"ten gi$en democratic leaders considerable "reedom o"action, allowing t#em to drum up nationalistic "er$or, s#ape public opinion, and suppress

dissent despite t#e obligation to allow "ree and open discussion.


30/90

*9C %2? Democratic usse!!Ss M1""7N =indins in su55or! o= !'e D&& are no! robus! and !'a! ;ointdemocracy does not reduce t#e probability o" international con"lict "or pairs o" states during

t#e postwar era. ,im5le and s!rai'!=orward modi=ica!ions o= 2neal and >usse!!Ss M1""7Nresearc' desin enera!ed !'ese drama!ically con!radic!ory resul!s. ,5eci=ically, by teasingout t#e separate impact o" democracy and political distance Hor political dissimilarityIand by

not coding cases o" ongoing disputes as new cases o" con"lict, it became clear t#at t#ere is no


31/90

signi"icant relations#ip between ;oint democracy and t#e likeli#ood o" international war ormili!ari9ed in!ers!a!e dis5u!e MDN =or s!a!es durin !'e 5os!war era. T'ese =indinssues! !'a! !'e 5os!RCold $ar s!ra!ey o= ?democra!ic enlaremen!@ w'ic' is aimed a!ensurin 5eace by enlarin !'e communi!y o= democra!ic s!a!es is qui!e a !'in reed onw'ic' !o res! a s!a!eSs =orein 5olicyRmuc' less !'e 'o5e =or in!erna!ional 5eace.

C.I 9o causal e3planations

0rock Geis and 8uller 4

Lo!'ar &ro=essor -ran0=ur! Anna >esearc' -ellow -ran0=ur! &ro=essor o= > -ran0=ur! Democra!ic $ars 5. 4+

T'e 5resen! *olume is mo!i*a!ed by unease abou! !'e 5re*alence o= quan!i!a!i*e s!udies ondemocra!ic 5eace. 8ost o" t#e researc# e""orts o$er t#e last ! years #a$e been "ocused on#ypot#esis:testing wi!'in one o= !'e es!ablis'ed a55roac'es but we still #a$e no co#erentt#eory. &tatistical tests do not inquire into causal mec#anisms, t#ey establis# correlationst#at can plausibly be interpreted as causation. 2#ey do not trace t#e cause:e""ect c#ains t#at

lead "rom t#e independent $ariable Hdemocracy I to t#e dependent $ariable He3ternal

Enon;$lolent be#a$iour I. Nuantitati$e studies #a$e produced a ric# store o" statistical dataw#ic# spell out regularities in t#e be#a$iour o" democraciesO t#eir pay:o"", #owe$er, islimited w#en it comes to e3plaining war. T'e reulari!ies are deri*ed =rom correla!ions andin order !o 5roceed =rom correla!ion !o causa!ion quan!i!a!i*e s!udies 5roduce morecorrela!ions. 2#e respecti$e "indings produce #ypot#eses w#ic# "ormulate a supposed "i3edcause@ e""ect relations#ip. T'e s!a!is!ics 'owe*er con=irm !'e 'y5o!'eses only in a 5robabilis!ic way.N '" we look at single cases, probabilistic #ypot#eses are o" little #elp.Countries do no! ini!ia!e a 7, 5er cen! mili!ary dis5u!e and !'ey do no! o !o war 81 5ercen!. T'ey eit#er go to war or t#ey do not. T'us !wo ques!ions arise: P 6ow candemocracies decide =or and aains! mili!ary dis5u!e ini!ia!ion or war and w'ic' in!rinsicca5abili!ies or a!!ribu!es enable !'em !o c'oose one or !'e o!'er o5!ion M!'ou' wi!'di==eren! rela!i*e =requencyN P $'a! are !'e condi!ions under w'ic' one or !'e o!'er

o5!ion is c'osen &robabilis!ic =ormula!ions w'ic' rely on s!a!is!ical =indins 'a*e a 5ro5ensi!y!o sel=immuni9a!ion. Coun!eream5les can be dis5osed o= wi!' !'e Eanecdo!ale*idenceE arumen!. 2#is is quite problematic : i= !'e !'eory 'as any *alidi!y i! s'oulds!and !'e !es! o= Esalien! casesE as wellas random e*idence. ,alien! cases in ourunders!andin are !'ose maIor e*en!s in*ol*in !'e use o= mili!ary =orce !'a! 'a*e adecisi*e im5ac!on !'e course o= 'is!ory.

5$en i" t#eyAre rig#t, we s#ouldnAt assume democratic peace t#eory sol$es $iolence: it only

increases t#e risk o" poor policy planning and instability

Little

MAdrian Lec!urer in &oli!ical T'eory Uni*ersi!y o= elbourne ,e5!ember

'!!5:BBaus5sa.anu.edu.auB5roceedinsB5ublica!ionsBLi!!le5a5er.5d=N2#e politics o" $iolence and democracy in 9ort#ern 'reland is an ongoing process wit#out anend state. ust as %lain 0adiou argues t#at e$ery politics wort#y o" t#e name "inds its point

o" departure in t#e way people represent t#eir li$es and rig#tsA M/adiou (%%1: 1%N so muste$ery pro;ected idea o" democratic politics be grounded in t#e conte3t o" e$eryday li"e. n or!'ern reland as e*eryw'ere else a democra!ic 5oli!ics =ree =rom *iolence isunrealisable. T'e or!'ern reland 5oli!y is buil! u5on !'e =ounda!ions o= *iolen! con=lic!and !'e 5oli!ical iden!i!ies w'ic' con!es! !'e democra!ic arena are deri*ed =rom !'a!con!e!. n !'is sense !'e !'rus! o= -oucaul!Ss arumen! seems w'olly 5er!inen!: !'e


32/90

ar!icula!ion o= a 5eace=ul democra!ic 5oli!ics runs con!rary !o !'e an!aonis!ic 5as! w'ic' 5receded con!em5orary condi!ions. T'us our inscri5!ion o= !'e 5resen! is always anar!icula!ion o= !'e 5as!. n or!'ern reland !'is will always re=lec! !'e *iolence o= !'e 5as!and !'is is a salu!ary lesson =or democra!ic !'eory. isions o" democracy t#at ignore t#ecentrality o" $iolence in t#e past and t#e present are anac#ronistic at best and #ypocritical at

worst . 8oreo$er, in ignoring t#e $iolent "oundations o" democracy, t#ey #a$e a muc# greater

propensity to generate "urt#er $iolence in t#e "uture .


33/90

*9C %2? %ccountability

Pour impact e$idence pro$es t#e U& will abandon its accountability and democracy

promotion in times o" con"lict: public c#ecks donAt sol$e

%nd, accountability ;ust produces knee:;erk reactions to public panic like t#e wars in

%"g#anistan and 'raq: it doesnAt limit con"licts, e3cept in$ol$ement in areas like Jwanda

Democracies abdicate c#ecks and balances in times o" con"lict

Gowa --

;oanne &ro=essor &rince!on /allo!s and /ulle!s: T'e )lusi*e Democra!ic &eace ues!ia2#e !'ird argument t#at is ad$anced to support t#e e3istence o" a democratic peaceemp#asizes t#e role o" c#ecks and balances. Pet, nondemocracies may be able to constrain t#e

ability o" would:be renegade leaders to embark upon military ad$entures abroad about as

e""ecti$ely as democracies. T'a! is t#e crucial distinction across polities may lie in t#e "orm,rat#er t#an t#e e""ect, o" t#e rele$ant constraints. -or eam5le some s!uden!s o= American

5oli!ics belie*e !'a! Congress abdicated responsibility "or "oreign policy to t#e presidenta"ter =orld =ar '' Msee e.. &as!or 1"7W ,c'lesiner 1"74N. n !'eir *iew al!'ou' aninde5enden! leisla!ure eis!ed durin !'is 5eriod i! was 5oli!ically irrele*an!. T'e resul!so= !'e analyses in c'a5!er 3 sues! !'a! t#is p#enomenon e3isted wit# respect to t#e use o""orce abroad long be"ore t#e onset o" t#e Cold =ar . T'is may be a!!ribu!ed !o !'e =ac! !'a!in*ol*emen!s in mili!ari9ed dis5u!es !y5ically do no! 5roduce !'e s!ron dis!ribu!ionale==ec!s c'arac!eris!ic o= =or eam5le !rade 5olicy. ( 0ecause recourse to "orce abroad moreclosely resembles a public good , t#e political process t#at produces trade policy and t#at

w#ic# generates security policy di""er. 2#e latter does not typically precipitate t#e same kind

o" political pressure on #eads o" states as do trade issues. 2#us, political:market "ailures dri$e

a wedge between t#e principle and practice o" c#ecks and balances wit# respect to t#e use o"

"orce abroad. 2#e empirical "oundations o" t#e democratic peace pro$e to be less robust t#an

t#e s#eer number o" studies in t#e literature suggest. T'e analyses in c'a5!er 4 con=orm inalmos! all res5ec!s !o eis!in analyses. T'e one maIor ece5!ion is !'a! !'e 5re#$orld $ar and !'e 5os!# $orld $ar worlds are eamined se5ara!ely. T'is a55roac' was mo!i*a!ed by !'e =ac! !'a! !'ese !wo 5eriods di==er considerably =rom eac' o!'er in ways !'a! mi'! bee5ec!ed !o 'a*e a s!ron e==ec! u5on dis5u!e 5a!!erns Msee e.. ears'eimer 1""%W $al!91"7"W c=. 6o==man 1""%W


34/90

*9C 2ransition =ars

/utweig#s and turns t#e a"":

%.I 8agnitude: escalates quickly because o" a lack o" e""ecti$e diplomatic c#ecks in aninstitutionally weak and transitioning state: causes et#nic con"lict

Qakaria M

-areed Ka0aria &'D in &oli!ical ,cience =rom 6ar*ard edi!or o= ewswee0 n!erna!ional 5.113

5t#nic con"lict is as old as recorded 'is!ory and dic!a!ors'i5s are 'ardly innocen! in=omen!in i!. /u! newly democratizing societies display a disturbingly common tendencytoward it . T'e reason is sim5le: as society opens up and politicians scramble "or power , t#eyappeal to t#e public "or $otes using w#at ends up being t#e most direct, e""ecti$e language,

t#at o" group solidarity in opposition to some ot#er group . /"tent#is stokes t#e "ires o" et#nic

or religious con"lict. ,ome!imes !'e con=lic! !urns in!o a =ullscale war.

53tinctione#adi >M

esearc' Associa!e a! !'e n!erna!ional ns!i!u!e =or ,!ra!eic ,!udies December)T6C ,)L- D)T)>AT2 AD T6) />)A< U& 2- ,TAT), 1"83 5. 81.

T'is 5a5er 'as arued !'a! sel":determination con"licts #a$e direc! ad$erse consequences oninternational security. %s t#ey begin to tear nuclear states apart, t#e likeli#ood o" nuclear

weapons "alling into t#e #ands o" indi$iduals or groups willing to use t#em, or totrade t#em

to ot#ers, will reac# "rig#tening le$els . 2#is likeli#ood increases i" a con"lict o$er sel":

determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states . 2#e Jussian (ederation and

Ukraine may "ig#t o$er t#e Crimea and !'e Donbass areaW and 'ndia and


35/90

T'ere is 'owe*er one 0ey issue on w'ic' we may disaree wi!' /erman and Caro!'ers.$e sues! no! only !'a! democratization is o"ten $iolent M/ermanEs main 5oin!N bu! also!'a! premature , out:o":sequence attempts to democratize may make subsequent e""orts todemocratize F)nd &ae more di""icult and more $iolent t#an t#ey would ot#erwise be.=#en elections are #eld in an institutional wasteland li0e raq =or eam5le 5oli!ical

competition typically coalesces around and rein"orces t#e et#nic and sectarian di$isions intraditional society. To =ore liberal secular coali!ions !'a! cu! across cul!ural di*isions i! isnecessary !o 'a*e im5ar!ial s!a!e ins!i!u!ions !'a! 5ro*ide a =ramewor0 =or ci*ic ac!ion anda =ocal 5oin! =or ci*ic loyal!y. =it#out reasonably e""ecti$e ci$ic institutions, t#e outcome inculturally di$erse societies is likely to resemble 'raq and Lebanon. /nce a country starts on

an illiberal tra;ectory, ideas are unleas#ed and institutions are establis#ed t#at tend to

continue propel ling it along t#at tra;ectory. A 0ey daner is !'a! premature democratizationwill pus# a country down t#is pat# . $e 'i'li'! !'e im5or!ance o= sequencin no! becausewe are so o5!imis!ic abou! !'e 5ros5ec!s o= enineerin a 5ro5erly ordereddemocra!i9a!ion bu! because we are so concerned abou! !'e consequences o= !ransi!ionsoccurrin under o!'er condi!ions.

2ransition emboldens "undamentalists: increases t#e risk o" terrorism and internal con"licts0ensa#el

&re5ared =or !'e Air -orce -ellow !'e >and Cor5ora!ion &ro=essor o= &oli!ical ,cience T'e-u!ure ,ecuri!y )n*ironmen! in !'e iddle )as!

Gi*en !'e rane o= 5o!en!ial crises !'a! could emere in !'e iddle )as! !'e Uni!ed ,!a!esmus! care=ully consider w'ic' 5olicies are li0ely !o 5roduce !'e bes! ou!come. % criticalissue is w#et#er t#e United &tates s#ould promote political stability or w#et#er it s#ould

encourage democratic re"orm. 53perience in t#e "ormer &o$iet Union and elsew'eresues!s !'a! states undergoing t#e transition to democracy are more likely to becomein$ol$ed in con"licts wit# t#eir neig#bors . oreo*er democratization in t#e 8iddle 5astcould open t#e door to nationalist or "undamentalist groups t#at are opposed to U.&. interests .

'n t#e past, w#en "aced wit# a c#oice between preser$ing t#e stability o" a non:democratically and "ostering democratic c#ange, t#e United &tates #as sided wit# t#e incumbent regime.


36/90

*9C Democracy – 5con Collapse

Democracy collapses t#e economy –

%.I Kills trade and de$elopment

&c#weller *k >andall ,c'weller &ro=essor o= &oli!ical ,cience a! 2'io ,!a!e Uni*ersi!y American Democracy&romo!ion 5. +3

-irs! "ree trade rein"orces competition , and competition produces losers as well as winners.(ragile democratizing states are under enormous pressure to appease uncompetiti$e domestic

distributional coalitions by adopting protectionist policies at t#e e3pense o" t#e general

national and cosmo5oli!an interests in =ree !rade. n o!'er words t#ere is no reason to e3pectt#at de$eloping states will c#oose "ree trade and lobal liberalism o$er neomercantilistpoliciesO and indeed !'ere are ood reasons !o e5ec! !'a! !'ey will c'oose !'e la!!er.

Cer!ainly !'e s'oc0!rea!men! a55roac' !o ca5i!alism reardless o= social consequences!'a! was ado5!ed by many na!ions recen!ly libera!ed =rom communism 5laced a! ris0 !'e

=raile democra!i9in 5rocesses under way in !'ese newly au!onomous s!a!es. ,econdw'ile liberal democracy requires a mar0e! economy ca5i!alism does no! require liberaldemocracy. /enIamin /arber correc!ly no!es: T'e s!eal!' r'e!oric !'a! assumes ca5i!alis!in!eres!s are no! only com5a!ible wi!' bu! ac!i*ely ad*ance democra!ic ideals !ransla!edin!o 5olicy is di==icul! !o reconcile wi!' !'e in!erna!ional reali!ies o= !'e las! =i=!y years.ar0e! economies 'a*e s'own a remar0able ada5!abili!y and 'a*e =louris'ed in many!yrannical s!a!es =rom C'ile !o ,ou!' e5ublic o= C'inaR 5ossesses one o= !'e worldSs =as!es!rowin mar0e! economies. Ca5i!alism sim5lyrequires a s!able 5oli!ical clima!e and consumers wi!' access !o mar0e!s. 2#e unstable, e$enc#aotic, conditions c#aracteristic o" emerging democracies are scarcely conduci$e to t#e

de$elopment o" a t#ri$ing market economy. ndeed !'e in!eres!s o= ca5i!alism anddemocracyR es5ecially !'e 5rocess o= democra!i9a!ionRdi*ere in basic ways: X2n !'ele*el o= !'e indi*idual ca5i!alism see0s consumers susce5!ible !o !'e s'a5in o= !'eir needsand !'e mani5ula!ion o= !'eir wan!s w'ile democracy needs ci!i9ens au!onomous in !'eir!'ou'!s and inde5enden! in !'eir delibera!i*e

0.I %utocratic $alues sol$e recession

&artori !

Gio*anni ,ar!ori &ro=essor )meri!us in !'e 6umani!ies a! Columbia Uni*ersi!y T'e GlobalDi*erence o= Democracies 5. +7+8

Le! us !urn !'en !o !'e ques!ion: Does democracy work best, economically speaking anywould boldly answer wi!' a resoundin yes. As T'e )conomis! 5u!s i! !'e e*idence s'ows !'a! ?across scores o=

coun!ries and cen!uries o= 'is!ory democracy 'as 5romo!ed row!' =ar more e==ec!i*ely and consis!en!ly !'an any o!'er 5oli!ical sys!em.@S% wis' !'a! could belie*e !'a!. Alas w'a! !'is accoun! com5le!ely misses is !'a! row!' came wi!'!ec'noloical ad*ancemen! and !'a! !ec'noloy is a by5roduc! no! o= democracy bu! o= !'e 0ind o= loic and ra!ionali!y=ored by !'e ancien! Gree0s w'ic' e*en!ually a*e rise !o !'e ?scien!i=ic s5iri!@ and in i!s wa0e !o !'e 5rodiiousde*elo5men! o= !ec'noloy !'a! uniquely occurred in !'e las! !wo cen!uries in !'e $es!ern world. ! is !rue !'a! C'ineseci*ili9a!ion was mar0ed by ou!s!andin s0ills and =or a lon !ime ou!5aced !'e $es! in !ec'nical in*en!ions. Je! !'escience and !ec'noloy !'a! ?moderni9e@ !odaySs world ne*er blossomed in o!'er cul!uresRnei!'er in C'ina nor !o ci!eano!'er maIor eam5le in ndia. 6ence !'e obser*ed correla!ion be!ween $es!ern liberal democracy and a==luence !urnsou! !o be s5urious. Correla!ions aside w'a! is !'e arumen! be'ind !'e !'esis o= democracySs ?economic su5eriori!y@Accordin !o T'e )conomis! ?one o= !'e main reasons w'y democracy 5romo!es row!' is !'a! i! o==ers !'e securi!y o=


37/90

5ro5er!y ri'!s !'a! is necessary =or ca5i!alis!ic 5roress.@@ 'n t#e wake o" t#e disastrous collapse o" &o$iet:type planned economies, #owe$er, e$en dictators well realize by now t#at t#e in$isible #andworks better t#an t#e $isible boot .S( 2#us dictators too will "ind t#at promoting marketsystems and res5ec!in 5ro5er!y ri'!s are in t#eir own best interests. %s ' look around, ' seedemocracies in growt# and democracies t#at are backsliding Ius! as see dic!a!ors'i5s

!'a! are in economic mins and dic!a!ors'i5s !'a! are enIoyin economic success. 2aiwan,&ingapore, &out# Korea, and now 8alaysia as well#a$e engineered t#eir economicmiracles under aut#oritarian monitoring. And w'a! o= 6on


38/90

*9C Democracy – 5n$ironmental Destruction

Democracy destroys t#e en$ironment – se$eral reasons.

Li and Jeu$eny 7

Li &ro= o= 5oli sci a! &enn ,!a!e and >eu*eny 5ro= o= 5ublic and en*ironmen!al a==airs ndiana U uan and >a=ael ?T'e )==ec!s o= Liberalism on !'e Terres!rial )n*ironmen!@'!!5:BBcm5.sae5ub.comBciBcon!en!Babs!rac!B(4B3B(1"

Accordin !o !'e policy inaction argument "acing en$ironmental degradation, democracycan o=!en e3#ibit policy inaction =or se*eral reasons Midlars0y 1""8: 1+"N. -irs! democracy seeks to please competing interest groups. As suc' it may be reluctant to alle$iateen$ironmental degradation because some groups are e3pected to bene"it Hor loseI "rom

en$ironmental policies more t#an ot#ers. &econd, corporation and en$ironmental groupscan "ig#t eac# ot#er to a standstill, lea$ing a decision making $acuum ins!ead o= a direc! im5ac! o= democracy on !'e en*ironmen!.@ 2#ird, w#en budgets are tig#t democracies mayignore en$ironmental problems 5ercei*in economic issues !o be more 5ressin.

53tinctionC#akkara$art#y M

As'o0a'!!5:BBwww.yor0u.caBbunc'mIBC)6B5roceedinsBC'a00ara*ar!'yYYC)6Y5a5ersY!o74.5d=

2#e $ery basis o" #uman sur$i$al #inges on !'e sus!ainable in!erlin0aes wi!' t#een$ironment. T'e 5resen! day scenario 'owe*er !ells a di==eren! s!ory. 2#e e$er:increasingproblems due to pollution are leading to $arious en$ironmental #azards t#at are detrimental

to our sur$i$al. n !'is con!e! !'is 5a5er aims !o address !'e *arious 5roblems *is*is'uman sur*i*al and !'e s!e5s !o be !a0en u5 in a concer!ed =as'ion !owards sus!ainablede*elo5men!. n =u!ure years !'e 5o5ula!ion increase will require !'a! !'e en*ironmen! o=!'e world be re*iewed as a closed sys!em. Consequen!ly i! is necessary !o !a0e an

ecoloical a55roac' !o en*ironmen!al quali!y and consider !'e !o!ali!y o= !'e en*ironmen!wi!' man as 5ar! o= an ecosys!em.

2urns e$ery impact

)omer:Di3on ->

T'omas 6omerDion assis!an! 5ro=essor o= 5oli!ical science and direc!or o= !'e &eace andCon=lic! ,!udies &roramme a! !'e Uni*ersi!y o= Toron!o 1""8 $orld ,ecuri!y C'allenes =or a ew Cen!ury 5. 34(343

)5er!s 'a*e 5ro5osed numerous 5ossible lin0s be!ween en*ironmen!al c'ane andcon=lic!. ,ome 'a*e sues!ed !'a! en*ironmen!al c'ane may s'i=! !'e balance o= 5ower be!ween s!a!es ei!'er reionally or lobally causin ins!abili!ies !'a! could lead !o war.%not#er possibility is t#at global en$ironmental damage mig#t increase t#e gap between ric#

and poor soci eties, wit# t#e poor t#en $iolently con"ronting t#e ric# "or a "airer s#are o" t#e

worldAs wealt#. ,e*ere con=lic! may also arise =rom =rus!ra!ion wi!' coun!ries !'a! do no! oalon wi!' areemen!s !o 5ro!ec! !'e lobal en*ironmen! or !'a! ?=reeride@ by le!!ino!'er coun!ries absorb !'e cos!s o= en*ironmen!al 5ro!ec!ion. $armer !em5era!ures couldlead !o con!en!ion o*er more easily 'ar*es!ed resources in !'e An!arc!ic. 0ulgingpopulations and land stress may produce wa$es o" en$ironmental re"ugees , spilling across

borders and disrupting relations among et#nic groups . Countries mig#t "ig#t among

t#emsel$es because o" dwindling supplies o" water and t#e e""ects o" upstream pollution. A


39/90

s'ar5 decline in =ood cro5 5roduc!ion and ra9in land could lead !o con=lic! be!weennomadic !ribes and seden!ary =armers. 5n$ironmental c#ange could in time cause a slowdeepening o" po$erty in poor countries, w#ic# mig#t open bitter di$isions between classes and

et#nic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn re$olutions and insurgencies. neneral many e5er!s 'a*e !'e sense !'a! en$ironmental problems will ratc#et up@ !'e

le*el o= stress wi!'in s!a!es and !'e in!erna!ional communi!y increasing t#e likeli#ood o"many di""erent kinds o" con"lict B =rom war and rebellion !o !rade dis5u!es Bandundermining possibilities "or cooperation.


40/90

*9C Democracy 0ad – 5uropean =ars

Democracy leads to 5uropean =ars – leads to 9%2/ escalation

)enderson *

)rrol 6enderson Assis!an! &ro=essor De5!. o= &oli!ical ,cience a! !'e Uni*ersi!y o= -lorida(%%( Democracy and $ar T'e )nd o= an llusion 5. 73

T'ese resul!s sues! se*eral researc' and 5olicy im5lica!ions. -irs! analys!s o= !'emonadic le*el D&& s'ould use e5lici!ly s!a!e le*el s5eci=ica!ions o= !'eir *ariables inorder !o a*oid le*el o= analysis 5roblems.8 ,econd !'e resul!s seriously call in!o ques!ion!'e em5irical under5innins o= !'e democra!ic enlaremen! s!ra!ey. ,ome mi'! in!er5re!!'e =indin !'a! $es!ern democracies are less li0ely !o ini!ia!e dis5u!es and wars as*indica!ion o= !'e *iew !'a! !'ese s!a!es s'ould embar0 on a crusade !o s5read democracyW'owe*er my =indins indica!e !'a! democratic enlargement is more likely to "uel increasedinterstate war in$ol$ement because !'e s5read o= democracy will enera!e more democraticstates w#ic# are more likely to become in$ol$ed inB and to initiateBinterstate wars. T'eseconclusions cas! an ominous s'adow o*er o!'erwise 5osi!i*e de*elo5men!s suc' as !'edemocra!ic !rans=orma!ion o= s!a!es in !'e 5resen! wa*e o= democra!i9a!ion. T'ey cer!ainlyraise concerns abou! !'e e==icacy o= recen! enlaremen! ini!ia!i*es suc' as !'e e5ansion o= AT2 !o include se*eral newly democra!i9ed )as!ern )uro5ean s!a!es. )as!ern )uro5eremains a *ola!ile reion and t#e presence o" democracy in t#e new 9%2/ members o"


41/90

*9C Democracy – )egemony Collapse

Democracy collapses #egemony:

%.I Disastrous military inter$entions

0.I &trategic o$ere3tension

C.I (alse sense o" security

Layne -

C'ris!o5'er Layne isi!in -ellow in -orein &olicy ,!udies a! !'e Ca!o ns!i!u!e -all 1""4n!erna!ional ,ecuri!y ?oo! said !'a! ?To be sa=e democracy mus! 0ill i!s enemy w'en i! can and w'ere i! can. T'e world canno! be 'al=democra!ic and 'al= au!ocra!ic.@S43 Durin !'e ie!nam $ar ,ecre!ary o= ,!a!e Dean >us0 claimed !'a! !'e ?Uni!ed ,!a!es canno! be secure un!il !'e !o!al in!erna!ional en*ironmen! isideoloically sa=e.@ T'ese are no! isola!ed commen!sW !'ese *iews re=lec! !'e 'is!oric American 5ro5ensi!y !o see0 absolu!e securi!y and !o de=ine securi!y 5rimarily in ideoloical MandeconomicN !erms. T'e 5oli!ical cul!ure o= American =orein 5olicy 'as lon rearded !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es because o= i!s domes!ic 5oli!ical sys!em as a sinular na!ion. As a consequence American 5olicyma0ers 'a*e been a==ec!ed by a ?dee5 sense o= bein alone@ and !'ey ' a*e rearded !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es as ?5er5e!ually belea uered.@S Consequen!ly AmericaSs=orein and de=ense 5olicies 'a*e been s'a5ed by !'e belie= !'a! !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es mus! crea!e a =a*orable ideoloical clima!e abroad i= i!s domes!ic i ns!i!u!ions are !o sur*i*e and

=louris'.S4+ Democratic peace t#eory panders to impulses w#ic# 'owe*er noble in !'e abs!rac! #a$e led todisastrous military inter$entions abroad, strategic o$ere3tension, and t#e relati$e decline o"

%merican power. T'e la!es! eam5le o= !'e daners o= $ilsonianism is !'e Clin!on adminis!ra!ionSs &ar!ners'i5 =or &eace. Under !'is 5lan !'e asser!ed Americanin!eres! in 5roIec!in democracy in!o )as! Cen!ral )uro5e is ad*anced in su55or! o= AT2 securi!y uaran!ees and e*en!ual members'i5 =or &oland 6unary and !'e C9ec' >e5ublicMand some =orm o= U.,. securi!y uaran!ee =or U0raineN. T'e underlyin arumen! is sim5le: democra!ic o*ernmen!s in !'ese coun!ries will uaran!ee reional 5eace in !'e 5os!R Cold $ar era bu! democracy canno! !a0e roo! unless !'ese coun!ries are 5ro*ided wi!' !'e ?reassurance@ o= U.,. or AT2 securi!y uaran!ees. n =ac! 'owe*er )as! Cen!ral )uro5eis bound !o be a 'i'ly *ola!ile reion reardless o= w'e!'er AT2 ?mo*es eas!.@ T'e e!ension o= AT2 uaran!ees eas!ward carries wi!' i! !'e ob*ious ris0 ! 'a! !'e Uni!ed ,!a!eswill become embroiled in a =u!ure reional con=lic! w'ic' could in*ol*e maIor 5owers suc' as Germany U0raine or >ussia. T'ere is li!!le wisdom in assumin suc' 5o!en!ially ris0y

under!a0ins on !'e basis o= dubious assum5!ions abou! !'e 5aci=yin e==ec!s o= democracy.S@ Democratic peace t#eory is dangerous inanot#er respect as well: i! is an in!eral com5onen! o= a new Mor more correc!ly recycledNou!loo0 on in!erna!ional 5oli!ics. 't is now widely belie$ed t#at t#e spread o" democracy andeconomic interdependence #a$e e""ected a qualitati$e c#ange in international politics and!'a! war and serious securi!y com5e!i!ions be!ween or amon democra!ic rea! 5owers arenow im5ossible.147 2#ere is t#ere"ore i! is said no need to worry about "uture great powerc#allenges "rom states like apan and Germany, or to worry about t#e relati$e distribution o"

power between t#e Uni!ed &!a!es and t#ose states, unless ;a5an or Germany were !o slide bac0 in!o au!'ori!arianism.S48 T'e reason !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es need no! be concerned wi!' !'erea!5ower emerence o= ;a5an and Germany is said !o be sim5le: !'ey are democraciesand democracies do no! =i'! democracies. odernday 5ro5onen!s o= a liberal !'eory o=

in!erna!ional 5oli!ics 'a*e cons!ruc!ed an a55ealin *ision o= 5er5e!ual 5eace wi!'in a 9oneo= democracy and 5ros5eri!y. /u! !'is ?9one o= 5eace@ is a 5eace o= illusions. 2#ere is noe$idence t#at democracy at t#e unit le$el negates t#e structural e""ects o" anarc#y at t#e le$el

o" t#e international political system. ,imilarly !'ere is no e*idence !'a! su55or!s !'e sis!er!'eory: !'a! economic in!erde5endence leads !o 5eace. /o!' ideas 'a*e been around =or alon !ime. T'e =ac! !'a! !'ey are so widely acce5!ed as a basis =or in!erna!ional rela!ions!'eory s'ows !'a! =or some sc'olars ?!'eories@ are con=irmed by !'e number o= realworld!es!s !'a! !'ey =ail. &ro5onen!s o= liberal in!erna!ional rela!ions !'eory may con!end as


42/90

>usse!! does !'a! liberal a55roac'es !o in!erna!ional 5oli!ics 'a*e no! =ailed bu! ra!'er !'a!!'ey 'a*e no! been !ried.S4" /u! !'is is w'a! disa55oin!ed ad'eren!s o= ideoloicalworld*iews always say w'en belie= is o*ercome by reali!y. '" %merican policymakers allowt#emsel$es to be mesmerized by democratic peace t#eory As seducti$e Rbu! =alseR $ision o=!'e =u!ure t#e Uni!ed &!a!es will be ill prepared to "ormulate a grand strategy t#at will

ad$ance its interests in t#e emerging world o" multipolar great power competition. ndeed aslon as !'e $ilsonian world*iew under5ins American =orein 5olicy policymakers will beblind to t#e need to #a$e suc# a grand strategy, because !'e liberal !'eory o= in!erna!ional 5oli!ics de=ines ou! o= eis!ence Mece5! wi!'res5ec! !o nondemocraciesN !'e *ery 5'enomena !'a! are a! !'e core o= s!ra!ey: war !'e =orma!ion o= 5ower balances and concerns abou! !'e rela!i*e dis!ribu!ion o= 5ower amon!'e rea! 5owers. /u! in !'e end as i!s mos! ar!icula!e 5ro5onen!s admi! liberal in!erna!ional rela!ions !'eory is based on 'o5e no! on =ac!.S\ n !'e =inal analysis !'e world remainsw'a! i! always 'as been: i n!erna!ional 5oli!ics con!inues !o occur i n an anarc'ic com5e!i!i*e sel='el5 realm. T'is reali!y mus! be con=ron!ed because i! canno! be !ranscended. Gi*en!'e s!a0es !'e Uni!ed ,!a!es in comin years canno! a==ord !o 'a*e ei!'er i!s =orein 5olicy or !'e in!ellec!ual discourse !'a! under5ins ! 'a! 5olicy s'a5ed by !'eore!ical a55roac'es!'a! are based on wis'=ul !'in0in.

D.I %nti:%merican alliances

Qambelis

C'ris associa!e wi!' 6elios Global T'e ,!ra!eic m5lica!ions o= &oli!ical Liberali9a!ion andDemocra!i9a!ion in !'e iddle )as! &arame!ers ol 3+

2#e spread o" democracy to t#e 8iddle 5ast will likely be accompanied by serious setbacks

and periods o" instability. 2#is instability will come in many =orms and 'a*e im5or!an!im5lica!ions =or U, s!ra!eic in!eres!s in !'e reion and !'e war on !errorism. ! #as t#epotential to trans"orm t#e strategic landscape by contributing to t#erealignment o"

traditional alliances and t#e creation o" new power blocs t#at will c#allenge t#e U& position.)n!er &oli!ical slam T'e /us' Adminis!ra!ionEs *ision =or a democra!ic iddle )as! 5resu55oses !'a! emerin democracies will be =riendly !o $as'in!on and be willin !ocon!inue rela!ions on U, !erms. %lt#oug# its r#etoric is mind"ul t#at democracy in t#eregion will re"lect local traditions and culture, =as#ington e3pects t#at pluralistic

go$ernments will be secular in outlook and open to market re"orms. 'n reality, t#e spread o"

democracy does not guarantee t#at suc# go$ernments will come to power. n =ac! "reeelections will likely empower 'slamists o" $arious persuasions, most o" w#ic# ad$ocate

populist agendas critical o" U& policy. 2#ere is also a danger t#at elections will ele$atetotalitarian or anti:%merican "orces . 5lections may e$engi$e rise to democracies t#at will

"orge closer ties to Jussia, 5urope, and C#ina to o""set U& dominance.


43/90

*9C Democracy – 2errorism

Democracy causes terrorism:

%.I Collapses co:operati$e approac#es

0ensa#el &re5ared =or !'e Air -orce -ellow !'e >and Cor5ora!ion &ro=essor o= &oli!ical ,cience T'e-u!ure ,ecuri!y )n*ironmen! in !'e iddle )as!

= an!iAmerican sen!imen! is as wides5read as reimes curren!ly =ear or i= i! increases in!'e wa0e o= !'e U.,. cam5ain aains! !errorism in A='anis!an and beyond politicalre"orm could #a$e a $ery ad$erse e""ect on regional cooperation wit# t#e United &tates. 0ot#

democratization and liberalization enable people to e3press t#eir pre"erences more easily,

and i" t#ose pre"erences really are "or reduced cooperation wit# t#e U nited & tates, regimes

will #a$e an increasingly di""icult time ;usti"ying t#eir current policies. 2#is could lead to

pressure "or less open cooperation , es5ecially reardin U.,. mili!ary =orces s!a!ioned in !'e

reion. Jegimes may become e$en more reluctant to reac# "ormal security agreements wit#t#e U nited & tates, because domestic audiences see suc# agreements as proo" t#at t#e regimesare incapable o" pro$iding security wit#out e3ternal assistance. 'ncreased sensiti$ity to ties

wit# t#e United &tates could also spill o$er into decreased support "or ot#er U.&. regional

initiati$es, suc# as t#e peace process, anti:proli"eration measures, and counterterrorism.

0.I


44/90

organizations t#at sometimes "eed t#e e3tremists. T'ere may be an analoy !o !'e muc'deba!ed rela!ions'i5 be!ween !'e eis!ence o= democracy in coun!ries and !'e 5rocli*i!y o=coun!ries !o o !o war: Al!'ou' es!ablis'ed democracies !end no! !o =i'! wars wi!' oneano!'er coun!ries se!!in ou! on !'e !urbulen! 5a!' =rom dic!a!ors'i5 !o democracy areo=!en more war5rone. 5$en t#e success"ul ac#ie$ement o" democracy o""ers no guarantee

t#at a society will not produce terrorists. 8ore t#an a "ew establis#ed democracies #a$estruggled wit# persistent terrorist t#reats , w'e!'er i! is &pain con"ronting 0asque terrorists,'taly "acing t#e Jed 0rigades, or Great 0ritain ra55lin wit# t#e 'ris' J e5ublican %rmy.

9o risk o" a turn: no risk o" cooperation or pro:%merican sentiment

Carot#ers and /ttaway

T'omas direc!or o= !'e Democracy and >ule o= Law &roIec! a! !'e Carneie )ndowmen! =orn!erna!ional &eace arina senior associa!e in !'e Democracy and >ule o= Law &roIec! a! !'eCarneie )ndowmen! Unc'ar!ed ;ourney 5. (+3

o! only are U.,. in!eres!s in !'e reion mied and o=!en mu!ually con!radic!ory bu! t#eunderlying logic o" t#e new democracy imperati$e is not persuasi$e to many %rab obser$ers

%ut#oritarian regimes in t#e 8iddle 5ast, t#e current U.&. argument goes, are a t#reat to t#e

U nited & tates because t#eir disastrous economic policies and repressi$e politics impo$eris#and "rustrate t#eir populations, and t#is in turn creates "ertile ground "or t#e growt# o"

terrorists. n addi!ion !'e $a''abis w'o are s5readin !'eir in!oleran! ideoloy wi!',audi su55or! or a! leas! willinness !o loo0 !'e o!'er way 5ro*ide an ideoloical Ius!i=ica!ion =or !'e *iolence bred by 5o*er!y and 5oli!ical re5ression. /u! !'e lin0 be!ween 5o*er!y and 5oli!ical re5ression on !'e one 'and and !errorism on !'e o!'er is o5en !oques!ion. 2#e $ery poor are not usually t#e organizers o" terrorist groups as an analysis o=!'e 5ersons res5onsible =or !'e ,e5!ember 11 a!!ac0s ma0es e*iden!. %nd terroristmo$ements can grow in democratic countries as well :see t#e 'ris# Jepublican %rmy, t#e 52%

in &pain, t#e 'talian Jed 0rigades, and t#e German 0aader:8ein#o" gang. os! im5or!an!,it is "ar "rom clear w#et#er t#e present autocratic regimes i" t#ey were to suddenly open up to

deep:reac#ing political c#ange, would be replaced by go$ernments inclined to be "riendly or#elp"ul to t#e U nited & tates U &. security and democracy interests , in ot#er words? do not

neatly coincide in t#e %rab world at least in t#e s#ort run: and it is t#e s#ort run t#at dri$es

most policy making.

Democracies enables terrorism more t#an non:democracies

;ames A. De5ar!men! o= &oli!ical ,cience Uni*ersi!y o= or!' Carolina a! C'arlo!!e'!!5:BBwww.5oli!icalscience.uncc.eduBI5ia99aB&ia99a(%Democracy(%-ree(%ar0e!s(%Terrorism.5d= on5ar!isan academic s!udies o= !'e rela!ions'i5 be!ween 5oli!ically and economically closedsocie!ies and !errorism enerally do no! su55or! !'e model ura*c'i0 ou!lines. n =ac! mostempirical studies o" terrorism tend to demonstrate a positi$e relations#ip between politicaldemocracy and terrorism. T'e rela!ions'i5 be!ween !errorism and macroeconomic 5olicies o=s!a!es R w'e!'er !'ey are liberal or s!a!edomina!ed R 'as no! been em5irically analy9ed and somuc' less is 0nown abou! 'ow 5romo!ion o= economic =reedom mi'! a==ec! !errorism. 5ubankand =einberg H!--, *++!I and &c#mid H!--*I argue t#at rat#er t#an ser$ing as a bulwark against

terrorism, democratic go$ernance e3acerbates terrorist acti$ity by pro$iding a wide range o"

a$enues t#roug# w#ic# radicals can ad$ance t#eir political agendas t#roug#, propaganda by deedA.

&c#mid H!--*I e3plains t#at an open and "ree media B a central quality o" democratic go$ernance

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/programs/global/index.cfm?fa=proj&id=101http://www.carnegieendowment.org/programs/global/index.cfm?fa=proj&id=101http://www.carnegieendowment.org/programs/global/index.cfm?fa=proj&id=101http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jpiazza/Piazza%20Democracy%20Free%20Markets%20Terrorism.pdfhttp://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jpiazza/Piazza%20Democracy%20Free%20Markets%20Terrorism.pdfhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/programs/global/index.cfm?fa=proj&id=101http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jpiazza/Piazza%20Democracy%20Free%20Markets%20Terrorism.pdfhttp://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jpiazza/Piazza%20Democracy%20Free%20Markets%20Terrorism.pdf


45/90

B "acilitates t#e communication ob;ecti$e t#at all terrorist groups #a$e w#ile t#e system o" legal

rig#ts institutionalized in most democracies more e""ecti$ely s#ield terrorist suspects and

perpetrators "rom detection, appre#ension and prosecution. Democracies also "acilitateunrestricted and unmonitored mo$ement o" people, creation o" "ree associations and acquisition

o" weaponsO all o" w#ic# assist terrorist groups. 8oreo$er, t#e legitimacy o" democratic

go$ernment rests ultimately on t#e publicAs perception o" #ow well it can protect its citizens, and in

a democracy citizens can punis# elected o""icials at t#e ballot bo3 "or "ailure to protect t#e public.

2#is quality o" public responsi$eness makes democracies more willing to negotiate wit# terrorists.

'n two statistical studies o" t#e presence o" terrorist groups in countries, 5ubank and =einberg

H!--, *++!I $alidated t#ese propositions in obser$ing t#at "rom =orld =ar '' to !->7, more

terrorist groups were "ound in democracies t#an in non:democracies. 2#e researc#ers also "ound

t#at no matter #ow durable or stable t#e democracy in question is, it is more likely to #a$e

terrorist acti$ity in it t#an a non:democracy. Com5a!ible resul!s were 5roduced by &ia99a M(%%7Nin a !imeseries analysis o= iddle )as!ern s!a!es and !o an e!en! by Li M(%%4N al!'ou' 'iss!udy did =ind !'a! w'ile s5eci=ic com5onen!s o= democracy suc' as o*ernmen! eecu!i*econs!rain!s increased !'e 5robabili!y o= !errorism democra!ic 5ar!ici5a!ion reduced i!. )yerman

M1""8N adds com5lei!y !o !'e ques!ion in 'is em5irical s!udy o= !erroris! ac!s =rom 1"8 !o 1"8.Usin a series o= s!a!is!ical analyses 'e =ound !'a! !wo !y5es o= s!a!es were mos! im5er*ious !o!erroris! a!!ac0s welles!ablis'ed democracies and en!renc'ed dic!a!ors'i5s. 6owe*er new nonconsolida!ed democracies were ac!ually more li0ely !o e5erience !errorism in )yermanSs s!udy 5roducin a nonlinear rela!ions'i5 be!ween !errorism and deree o= democracy and dic!a!ors'i5.


46/90

*9C 2rut# Claims D%

2rue political accountability and "reedom is only possible w#en we abandon t#e claim t#at

democracy stops $iolence, because we must be willing to accept t#at true democracy can

decay

Little

MAdrian

Democracy Core - JDI 2013

Documents

Transcript of Democracy Core - JDI 2013