Violence and the breakdown of the political settlement: an uncertain future for Bangladesh?

Abstract

We explore the dynamics of the elite political settlement in Bangladesh after the democratic transition in 1991 and its impact on the elite interactions in the arena of competitive electoral democracy. We trace the history of how a political settlement around regime succession developed in the mid-1990s, and then experienced difficulties in multiple stages, and finally broke down in 2011. Violence was instrumentally used, by the ruling elites and the main opposition party, to influence the processes of negotiations around the succession of power. We argue that ‘partyarchy’—where political parties exert informal control of the party through formal processes and institutions—and dynastic rule prevent the political elites from reaching a stable settlement around regime succession. We also show how the changes to the rules of the game around regime succession have led to a qualitative shift in the extent and nature of violence in the political domain, and explore why democratic consolidation remains elusive.     

Democratization and the Disfranchisement of African Americans in the US South during the Late 19th Century

The disfranchisement of African Americans in the South during the late 19th century highlights the role that mass actors, in this case African Americans, can play as part of the enforcement mechanism to prevent elites from backtracking on democracy. This episode in US history further suggests that for democratic progress to be consolidated, vulnerable groups require sufficient economic and social power to defend their formal rights. Newly emancipated African Americans gained the franchise in 1870. They voted in large numbers for two decades. But at the turn of the century each Southern state introduced disfranchising measures. The article discusses the efforts of Southern political elites to restore the antebellum social and political order, and the reasons the national state failed to intervene to protect the rights of former slaves. Above all, the article explores the nature of African American resistance and its effect on the timing and course of disfranchisement. It also draws attention to the importance of African American resistance by comparing Southern disfranchisement with the little-known cases of attempted disfranchisement of African Americans in the antebellum North and early 20th century Maryland. The article concludes that the relative strength of African Americans in contemporary America makes another rollback of democratic rights unlikely.     

The dynamics of donor and domestic elite interaction in Mozambique: formal decentralisation and informal power structures

Abstract

This paper analyses the interaction of domestic political elites and external donors against the backdrop of Mozambique’s decentralisation process. The empirical research at national and local levels supports the hypothesis that informal power structures influence the dynamics of this interaction. Consequently, this contributes to an outcome of externally induced democratisation different to what was intended by external actors. The decentralisation process has been utilised by ruling domestic elites for political purposes. Donors have rather focused on the technical side and ignored this informal dimension. By analysing the diverging objectives and perceptions of external and internal actors, as well as the instrumentalisation of formal democratic structures, it becomes clear, that the ‘informal has to be seen as normal’. At a theoretical level, the analysis contributes to elite-oriented approaches of post-conflict democratisation by adding ‘the informal’ as an additional factor for the dynamics of external-internal interaction. At a policy level, external actors need to take more into account informal power structures and their ambivalence for state-building and democratisation.     

Internet Governance in a Multipolar World: Challenging American Hegemony

This article traces the evolution of Internet governance, beginning with the earliest trans-Atlantic Internet ‘community’ associations that formed in the 1970s, up to and including the present mosaic of semi-private ‘self-regulating’ agencies headquartered mostly in the US. The effectiveness of the current system of Internet governance, based in large measure on US-sponsored bodies such as the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is assessed and contrasted with an emerging international paradigm that seeks greater cross-border harmonisation and multilateral oversight of cyberspace resources. Political disputes arising amongst governments and other interested stakeholders concerning allegations of American regulatory unilateralism are examined. Fuelled in part by a digital divide between the technological haves and have-nots, the battle for the heart and soul of the Internet has reached fever pitch, without any definitive prospects for achieving a global consensus. Special emphasis is placed on emerging US–EU policy differences, as well as divergent North–South positions within the UN-sponsored Working Group on Internet Governance and related conferences. Strategies for enhanced international coordination of Internet governance, building on existing organisational structures and processes, are proposed.     

Of ‘witch's brews’ and scholarly communities: the dangers and promise of academic parrhesia

In a series of lectures in the early 1980s, Michel Foucault resurrected the Greek word for frankness or truth-telling—‘parrhesia’—to investigate the inter-relationships and tensions that existed between freedom, truth-telling and political power. He concluded that in order for one to ‘tell the truth’ against a powerful superior, one needs the courage to oppose a community of which the parrhesiastes (‘truth teller’) is a member. This paper uses parrhesia to investigate the practice of the international relations (IR) scholar in speaking out against his or her scholarly community. Tony Smith's 2007 book Pact with the devil is used as an example of academic-intellectual parrhesia not only to illustrate the content of a potential form of parrhesia, but to demonstrate the challenges IR scholars who wish to practise academic parrhesia face in criticizing members of their academic community. Smith's critique of democratic peace theory specifically, and liberal IR theory more generally, is particularly noteworthy considering Smith's former position as a leading liberal proponent. The paper reviews, and then supplements and extends, Smith's critique of democratic peace theory.     

United States Hegemony and Globalisation: What Role for Theories of Imperialism?

This article examines the return of the subject of imperialism to the social sciences since 2001, focusing in particular on Marxist and Marxist-related attempts to reconstruct an analysis of the US-led international order based on this concept. It does so by first examining attempts to update Marxist and Marxian work to understand contemporary globalisation, and then points to both the weaknesses of these approaches and international events that have undermined these theories. The paper then examines the return of imperialism in some detail. While the international order can still be described as imperialist, the article is sceptical of many accounts of the ‘new imperialism’. This is partly because the utility of classical theories was questionable in the pre-1914 era, and are even more so now. Theorising imperialism in turns of surplus capital or a spatial fix ignores the direction of capital flows, both before the First World War, and in the current era. Moreover, as Marxist and Marxian theories of globalisation point out, the current era is one of greater openness and international integration than the pre-1914 era, and there is far greater cooperation between the core capitalist states, as well as sovereign states in the developing world. Contemporary imperialism is characterised by US hegemony but also greater global interdependence, and US military domination does not guarantee its economic domination. At the same time however, US hegemony is closely related to neo-liberalism and, despite as much as because of US intentions, these same policies undermine the prospects for development in the ‘South’. In this respect, US attempts to ‘Americanise’ the world are undermined by US hegemony and the imperialism of free trade.     

美国智库对华战略构想的新内涵——以《更长电报:走向新的美国对华战略》为例

拜登执政后美国对华战略如何调整备受瞩目,美国一些智库则积极"兜售"相关政策主张,其中大西洋理事会发布的《更长电报:走向新的美国对华战略》匿名报告受到广泛关注。该报告反映出美国智库对华战略构想中区别于传统冷战思维的新内涵,在战略认知上更新涉华判断,臆想当前中国战略"脆弱点",批判特朗普政府对华"政治惯性",主张从外部瓦解中国;在战略目标上力推拓展核心利益、重塑国际秩序,强调"共同威胁"以重振霸权体系,旨在护持冷战后美国霸权地位;在战略布局层面,提出振兴国家权势和加强对华威慑、明确与华竞争合作界限并煽动意识形态斗争,以全面遏制中国。该报告肆意抹黑中国,错误界定中国国家利益,对中国充满恶意偏见和误判,其战略布局根本无法撼动中国大战略根基。值得警惕的是,该报告的部分战略与政策构想在拜登政府近期政策实践中已有体现,暴露出美国政治精英与知识群体在涉华政策方面具有很大程度上的共同认知。在中美战略竞争常态化下,必须厘清两国关系的"常量"与"变量",做好应对各种风险和挑战的准备,尤其维护好国家意识形态安全。     

Chinese network diplomacy as a challenge for transatlantic partners

For decades, a prevailing view has been that a very limited number of global issues can be resolved without the USA and European Union acting together. But in recent years, we have seen a growing body of scholarship addressing the question of the ‘diffusion of power’, ‘the rise of the rest’ or ‘global zero’. With the financial crisis, questionable foreign policy choices and growing global competition from other international actors, both in terms of trade and ideas, the idea of the Western domination is increasingly questioned. At the same time, many international actors, including the European Union, are increasingly shifting—or ‘rebalancing’—their attention towards China and other Asian markets introducing new dynamics to old alliances and relationships. Borrowing from the network analysis scholarship, this paper looks at the EU relationship with China through a conceptual lens of ‘network power’ and ‘network diplomacy’. It applies this analytical lens to investigate the implications of EU–China relations for (1) the relations with the USA, (2) the relations with the ASEAN and (3) the effects of the trilateral EU–China–US cooperation on the region.     

De-idealizing the democratic civil peace: on the political economy of democratic stabilization and pacification in Argentina and Ecuador

In the liberal concept of a ‘democratic civil peace’, an idealistic understanding of democratic stabilization and pacification prevails: democracy is seen to guarantee political stability and social peace by offering comprehensive representation and participation in political decisions while producing outcomes broadly in accordance with the common interest of society. This contrasts with the procedural quality and the material achievements of most, if not all, really existing democracies. South America is paradigmatic. Here, the legitimation of liberal democracy through both procedure and performance is weak and yet ‘third wave democracies’ have managed to survive even harsh economic and political crises. The article presents a conceptual framework to analyse historically specific patterns of democratic stabilization and pacification. Analyses of the processes of socio-political destabilization and re-stabilization in Argentina and Ecuador since the late 1990s show how a ‘de-idealized’ perspective on the democratic civil peace helps explain the viability of democratic regimes that systematically deviate from the ideal-type conditions for democratic survival that have been proposed in the literature.     

Toward the Year 2000

To adapt and renew today's fraying international order, the West must partner more closely with democratic rising powers that remain ambivalent about existing international arrangements. There are four such ‘global swing states’: Brazil, India, Indonesia and Turkey. An effective engagement strategy will need to adjust the order's main pillars to enhance their appeal without transforming the fundamental character of the system in the process. It will need to influence what global swing states want through outreach to publics and private sectors. And it will need to make the case that all four can best manage China's rise by strengthening international rules of the road. If the West can enlarge the circle of countries that uphold the global order to include these rising democracies, the system that has long safeguarded international security and prosperity and promoted human rights will be able to endure.     

‘Gunboats of soft power’: Boris on Africa and post-Brexit ‘Global Britain’

As Britain prepares to leave the European Union after the popular vote of June 2016, the government is embarking on the revision of foreign policy. Boris Johnson, or ‘just Boris’, has been entrusted with forging the new ‘Global Britain’ for the post-Brexit era and reinventing British economy around new relationships. Boris has a track record of misrepresenting and offending foreign peoples, leaders and countries. This article assesses the prospects for Africa in Johnson’s vision for ‘Global Britain’ as presented in his foreign policy speeches. The paper unpacks Johnson’s discursive construction of ‘Africa’ and inserts it into a broader historical and political context of British relations with Africa. It argues that, by constructing Africa as a ‘problem’ and offering liberal values as a condition for development, Johnson is continuing British imperial and post-colonial discourses of ‘developing’ or ‘civilizing’ Africa. In the post-Brexit world of a changing global balance of power, democratic conditionality serves to sustain and reproduce British forms of power and policies.     

Elite Domination of Public Doubts About Climate Change (Not Evolution)

This article examines the sources of ideological skepticism about two issues where there is a scientific consensus: climate change and evolution. The results indicate that self-identified conservatives doubt global warming in large part because of elite rhetoric, but that evolution beliefs are unrelated to reception of political discourse. News reception is perhaps the strongest predictor of conservatives’ climate change skepticism, but has no influence on their aversion to evolution. Moreover, the article leverages three sources of variation in elite discourse on climate change—temporal, cross-national, and experimental—to show that changes in the prevalence of ideological cues strongly affect public opinion about global warming. Politically attentive conservatives, in fact, were more likely to believe scientists about global warming than liberals were in the 1990s before the media depicted climate change as a partisan issue. The United States is also the only nation where political interest significantly predicts both conservatives’ skepticism about, and liberals’ belief in, climate change. Finally, evidence from a national survey experiment suggests that Americans would be less skeptical of manmade global warming if more Republicans in Congress believed in it, but a growing Congressional consensus about evolution would not diminish doubts about its existence.     

In the shadows of war and peace: making sense of violence after peace accords

This article addresses an urgent but largely sidelined issue in the study of peace processes: that high levels of violence—usually framed as ‘crime’—are often ubiquitous in societies experiencing peace processes, even after the signing of peace accords. From South Africa to El Salvador, Guatemala to Northern Ireland, rising interpersonal violence has come to characterise the ‘peace’. This violence often takes place in the context of ambitious post-conflict development efforts. The article argues that even the seemingly non-political violence after peace accords is intimately linked to war, as well as the peace process—in both the causes of violence and in the types of violence that perpetrators use. In order to conceptualise post-peace accord violence, the article presents a framework of violence based on the perpetrators of violence and the types of violence (social, economic or political) that occur. This unpacking of post-peace accord violence emphasises the interconnectedness of political and non-political violence, and stresses the importance of security for development.     

The US Rebalancing to Asia and Transatlantic Public Opinion

The US policy of ‘rebalancing to Asia’ is likely to have major implications for transatlantic relations as well as for the role of rising powers, such as China. US public opinion and leaders are largely aware of this eastward shift in attention and this awareness can be considered, albeit in a somewhat indirect way, an indicator of support for the policy. On the other side of the Atlantic, however, Europeans seem to be less aware of the fact that the Far East is becoming the main chessboard of international relations in a multipolar global order. Nevertheless, when objectively informed about China, people on both sides of the Atlantic are less in favour of a shift in interests toward Asia and their negative perceptions of China are significantly correlated to a hesitancy in supporting a rebalancing policy. Moreover, if people perceive Beijing as a threat, especially an economic threat, they are even less likely to support a shift of interests to the Far East, the only exception being American elites, who tend to increase their support for the rebalancing strategy in the presence of a Chinese economic threat.     

A supranational party system and the legitimacy of the European Union

China’s emergence as an economic and military power has given rise to apprehensions globally, related not only to China’s cultural and historical ‘alienness’, but also to its apparent willingness to challenge the global system and architecture of global governance. While non-Western countries are wary of the possible impact on them and on the global order of Chinese actions, they appear to be willing to cooperate with China on some global issues in order to change a system often seen as inequitable and unbalanced. Yet, the West seems to conflate the idea of a rising China with that of other emerging markets. Given their historical, political and cultural experiences, however, their access to power and influence, if and when it happens, need not necessarily take the same route as China. This is true particularly of India; India is likely, at least for the foreseeable future, to remain within the existing paradigm of global governance, though it may seek to adapt the rules and structures to better reflect its economic, political and security interests. This would not preclude cooperation on a selective basis on specific global issues with different partners, particularly in the realm of global challenges such as climate change, non-proliferation, international trade and finance and the global commons, such as space, the oceans and cyberspace.     

The Normative Foundations of Hegemony and The Coming Challenge to Pax Americana

The ongoing reallocation of wealth and power from the West to the “rising rest” promises to produce a new pecking order over the course of the next few decades. Although there is a well-developed body of knowledge on the material dimensions of power transitions, existing scholarship provides a much more embryonic intellectual foundation on the normative dimensions of international change. Transitions in the international distribution of power produce not only novel hierarchies, but also novel brands of international order that rest on the social and ideological proclivities of newly powerful states in the system. This article explores the normative dimensions of hegemony by examining the geopolitical, socioeconomic, cultural, and commercial logics that inform different orders. The normative foundations of hegemony are studied across four great powers: the Ottoman Empire, Imperial China, Great Britain, and the United States. The cases reveal that as great powers rise, they as a matter of course seek to push outward to their expanding spheres of influence the norms that provide order within their own polities. Accordingly, today's emerging powers will not embrace the existing international order erected during the West's watch. On the contrary, China and other rising powers will seek to fashion alternative orders based on their own cultural, ideological, and socioeconomic trajectories. If the next international system is to be characterized by a rules-based order rather than competitive anarchy, it will require a new normative consensus that rests on toleration of ideological and political diversity.     

Civil society,democratization and development (II): Two country cases

Part II of this article applies the definition of ‘civil society’ and explores the hypotheses about its political role in the process of democratisation developed in Part I, in the context of two country case studies, South Korea and Zambia. These are chosen because of the contrasts in their developmental performance and in their level of socio‐economic development. In both countries, the forces of civil society played a major role in the transition to a democratic regime, but the prospects for sustainability vary. In the South Korean case, certain elements of civil society have grown along with the industrialization process and constitute a powerful force both to prevent an authoritarian reversion and to deepen the democratic process, in spite of the continuing strength of state elites left over from the ancien regime. The prospects for democratic sustainability are also improved by the maintenance of a growth momentum. In Zambia, however, the social and economic situations are still dire, the democratic elements of civil society are weak and divided and the state itself is in a ruinous condition. This leads one to be more pessimistic about the longer‐term prospects of democratic politics there. The article concludes by raising the issue of how democratic systems, once established, may be shaped to enhance both their political survival and their developmental capacity, with particular emphasis on the relationship between the state, political society and civil society.     

胁迫式外交:战略竞争时代美国对外战略的转型

以特朗普政府2017年《国家安全战略报告》和2018年《国防战略报告》为标志,世界进入美国启动的战略竞争新时期,地缘政治争夺和大国竞争再度成为世界政治的突出主题。美国重振和维护世界主导地位的目标未变,但"胁迫式外交"成为特朗普政府推行对外战略的常态,美国对外行为出现了冷战结束以来最为显著的变化,表现为重新激活战略军事威慑以压制战略军事竞争对手、以贸易热战和科技冷战方式打压战略经济竞争对手、以政治勒索方式逼盟友承担义务、以极限施压方式压制地区敌对国家、以退群和搅局方式阻挠多边外交。美国推行胁迫式外交与特朗普个人的执政风格相关,但根本性的原因是国际政治权力结构的重大变化和战略竞争时代的来临,推动美国对外权力输出发生了转型性变化。这也意味着美国对外权力输出方式正在发生从软实力向硬实力、从依赖制度优势向依赖实力优势的巨大偏转。美国所谓国际"领导力"正加速蜕变为维护美国特权的"胁迫力",美国权力输出的这种变化可能代表着未来美国外交发展的一种长期趋势。     

Diversity Management in World Politics. Reformist China and the Future of the (Liberal) Order

Given the widely shared belief that, following a long period of crisis, the American-led liberal world order is now in transition, the question arises: what comes next? Considering China’s ‘parallel order-shaping’ project with respect to the liberal order as a harbinger of a ‘multi-order world’, it is reasonable to expect a concert-like mode of ordering, which will draw on a new common language to reach consensus among proactive stakeholders at the global level. Those interested in maintaining the liberal character of this arrangement, such as the EU, should therefore steadily engage in the process leading to its establishment in order to gain and retain full membership while enhancing their discursive power.     

Why has the United States not bombed Iran? The domestic politics of America's response to Iran's nuclear programme

Why has the United States (US), under both the Bush and Obama administrations, refrained from attacking Iran even though US officials have depicted the Iranian threat in all but apocalyptic terms and even though a loud chorus in Washington has been persistently calling for a preventive strike against Iran? I present an analysis—informed by Graham Allison's famous bureaucratic politics model—of the main political and bureaucratic forces in Washington acting to promote or impede a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear sites. I argue that America's abstention from attacking Iran should be understood not as a coherent national response to Iran's nuclear programme but rather as (in Allison's terms) an ‘intra-national political outcome’ resulting from the ‘pulling’ of ‘Iran Threat’ interests—primarily Vice President Cheney's camp in the Bush White House, members of Congress, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—and the countervailing ‘hauling’ of the Pentagon, the military's top brass, the intelligence community and the Department of State. The main reason why neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has opted for a military strike is that the ‘haulers’, who were led by a formidable bureaucratic-political player, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have had the upper hand over the hawkish ‘pullers’.