The power of arms: rethinking armed parties and democratization through the Palestinian elections

This article examines the role of armed parties in democratization. Usually considered volatile and thus excluded from the democratic process, we argue instead that in certain circumstances, armed parties can have a productive role in elections aimed at democratization – most notably by contributing to the balance of power between incumbents and opposition, both before, during and after elections. An in-depth analysis of the 2006 Palestinian elections, placed in comparative context, shows how arms affect the calculus of voters, opposition elites, and incumbents to make elections more competitive and democracy more likely. The article then directly addresses the objection that postponing disarmament fosters civil war, arguing rather that postponing disarmament may actually help promote peaceful, democratic outcomes of states emerging from civil war. It concludes by discussing the implication of the analysis for the study of democratization and for policies aimed at democracy promotion.     

Democratization,State-building and War: The Cases of Serbia and Croatia

The author explores the connection that exists between democratization, state-building and war in the cases of Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s. It is necessary to examine closely how these processes influence one another because state-building and democratization are not necessarily contradictory and even war might not be an obstacle for democracy. However, in Serbia and Croatia state-building and war influenced democratization negatively, but in different ways. In Serbia, the nationalist mobilization for a state-building programme prevented democratization, while in Croatia democratization was a precondition for state-building, which then impeded democratic consolidation. Further important differences are the lower level of institutionalization, incomplete state-building, and polarized party system in Serbia and a higher level of institutionalization, completed state-building, and moderate party pluralism in Croatia. The war also influenced Croatia directly, while Serbia was only indirectly affected by the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina before the NATO intervention in 1999.     

War and Democratization: Legality,Legitimacy and Effectiveness

Promotion of democracy in post-war and post-conflict societies became a hot topic during the 1990s. External actors linked their peace-building efforts to the promotion of democracy. Four modes of promotion of democracy by external actors can be distinguished: first, enforcing democratization by enduring post-war occupation (mode 1); second, restoring an elected government by military intervention (mode 2); third, intervening in on-going massacres and civil war with military forces (‘humanitarian intervention’) and thereby curbing the national sovereignty of those countries (mode 3); and fourth, forcing democracy on rogue states by ‘democratic intervention’, in other words, democracy through war (mode 4). In this special issue we consider the legality, legitimacy, and effectiveness of the four modes where the international community of states not only felt impelled to engage in military humanitarian or peace-building missions but also in long-term state- and democracy-building. All cases analysed here suggest that embedding democratization in post-war and post-conflict societies entails a comprehensive agenda of political, social, and economic methods of peace-building. If external actors withdraw before the roots of democracy are deep enough and before democratic institutions are strong enough to stand alone, then the entire endeavour may fail.     

Conflict Resolution through Democracy Promotion? The Role of the OSCE in Georgia

This article qualitatively and empirically analyses the OSCE's efforts to promote democracy after intra-state war in Georgia. This regional organization is rooted in a comprehensive approach to security that directly links security to democratic values. Therefore, the OSCE is a particularly appropriate subject for studying the issue of democracy promotion in the context of conflict-resolution processes. Georgia provides a difficult environment for such a goal. Given that its two secession conflicts are ‘frozen’, democracy can, especially in this context, be considered a well-suited means to indirectly contribute to conflict resolution. By contrasting the democratic development in Georgia with OSCE activities since 1992, this article will assess OSCE democracy promotion efforts. When these efforts are measured with regard to progress in peace and democratic quality, the effectiveness of external democracy promotion by the OSCE has to be called into question. However, the article argues that democratization is a long-term process in which internal factors play a decisive role. The OSCE, like other international organizations, can only reach its normative goals to the degree of the reform orientation and political will of the target state's government. The potential for impact is limited, but can be increased by commitment and context sensitivity.     

Familiarity breeds contempt? Knowledge and understanding of democracy,support for democratization,and global city residence in Russia

Using Russian survey data from 2011 to 2012, this article examines public understanding of and support for democratization in a semi-authoritarian context. When knowledge of democracy is weak, and conceptual understanding of democracy is mixed—as in Russia—traditional measures of democratic support inadequately capture demand for democratization; that is, for more democracy than currently perceived. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Russians who adhere to “textbook” political definitions of democracy are more, not less, likely to advocate democratization. Residence in global cities increases support for democracy and democratization, while education fosters the latter but not the former. Other traditional indicators of middle-class status, such as income and urbanization, lack consistent effects. Based on these results we re-evaluate the mechanism linking modernization and support for democracy in developing, non-democratic societies. Rather than exert social-psychological or normative effects, modernization works primarily by raising exposure to global political discourses that define and promote democratic government.     

Democratization after Civil Wars – Key Problems and Experiences

Democratization and peace-building in post-civil war situations are closely interlinked. To analyse the difficulties of post-war democratization, and especially democratization as attempted by external and international actors, this article deals with the problem in several stages: first, it will provide a brief overview of the recent discourse on the topic, to place the discussion into the political and academic context. Second, it will focus on the reasons for and the types of civil wars, and the actors involved, because these provide the starting points of any attempt of post-war democratization and will determine the conditions for success and failure. Third, the key structural problems for post-civil war democratization will be explored, including ethnic fragmentation, followed by a brief analysis of the specific role, opportunities and limits of external actors in democratization. Finally, we will try to formulate a few hypotheses and conclusions to help explain the limited success of external democracy building in post-war societies, concentrating on the cases of Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The account concludes that without the necessary preconditions for democratization in post-conflict societies, external attempts will be of little success. Among the key requirements is the need for a strong and organized social base for democratization to build on. On the other hand, contradictions in the policies of intervening powers are a major hindrance.     

Post-civil war democratization: promotion of democracy in post-civil war states, 1946–2005

Post-civil war democratization is a critical element of building sustainable peace in post-civil war states. Yet studies of democratic transition and survival suggest that the post-civil war environment is not hospitable to either the transition toward or the survival of democracy. This inhospitality may be due to the fact that post-civil war environments are contentious. After a civil war, the former protagonists fear for their security and also want to protect their political and economic interests. The central argument of this study is that former rivals can agree to a transition toward democracy to the extent that a stable balance of power exists between the government and rebel groups; a balance that eliminates the sort of security dilemma that would encourage one or both parties to resume armed conflict. Such a balance should ensure access to political power and economic resources. This study identifies factors that contribute to the establishment of a balance of power between former protagonists and factors that affect its stability. The presence of these factors should affect the decision of former protagonists on whether or not they can achieve their political and economic interests if they agree to a transition toward democracy once the civil war ends. Based on this theoretical argument, I have derived empirically testable hypotheses. In the survival analysis performed, I find support for the theoretical arguments. The findings of this study have some policy implications.     

Mass Mobilization and Elite Exchange: Democratization Episodes in Italy and Spain

At its dawn, democracy was a social movement, but little attention has been given to social movements in recent (mainly American) theorizations of democratization.1 The reason for this seems to be the division of labour in the social sciences as well as the bad press that movements gained between the two world wars and in the cold war years. As a result, most theorists have emphasized the role of elites in transitional cycles and largely ignored the role of social movements. Since the 1960s, advances in social movement theory and research both in Europe and North America allow a fresh look at the role of movements in transitional cycles. In this article, three aspects coming from this tradition ‐ the structure of political opportunity, the relations of elites and citizens, and the problem of organization ‐ are applied to three episodes of democratization: the failed transition to democracy in Italy after the First World War, the successful transition in Spain in the mid‐1970s and the incomplete transition in East‐Central Europe since 1989. The article closes with a brief reflection on the role of learning from past transitions in democratization cycles.     

Inclusive institutions and stability of transition toward democracy in post-civil war states

This article attempts to bring together research on democratization and democratic consolidation with research on civil war termination. The post-civil war environment is contentious and the transition toward democracy achieved after a civil war is susceptible to failure. The side that wins the democratic elections in a post-war state may use its democratically won power to dismantle the institutions of democracy and repress the opposition. The fear of constant marginalization in the political processes as well as the fear of being repressed might create incentives for the defeated party to return to civil war. By utilizing the expected utility framework, this article suggests that former rivals would support democratic transition if they were confident that inclusive institutions ensured that they could achieve their political interests through the democratic processes. After analysing the data on post-civil war transitions toward democracy (TTD) from 1946–2005, I found that the proportional representation system and the parliamentary system are the most important institutions that help sustain the post-civil war TTD.     

Elitist democracy and China's democratization: A gradualist approach towards democratic transition by a group of Chinese intellectuals

This article examines how a group of Chinese intellectuals experimented with the western concept of elitist democracy in a Chinese context in the late 1980s. Drawing insights from western theories on political development and political culture, they argued that China's lack of a civic culture meant an elitist democracy would be an historically necessary and inevitable stage during the process of democratization. To implement elitist democracy in China, the existing political institutions should be made more open to experts, technocrats and intellectuals. This political proposal was advanced, involuntarily, during the Tiananmen Movement of Spring 1989, but eventually suffered a great setback. Nevertheless, the article maintains that elitist democracy remains relevant to China's democratization in the future.     

Democratization in Conflict Research: How Conceptualization Affects Operationalization and Testing Outcomes

Using the debate over democratization and conflict, we demonstrate how the connection between conceptualization and operationalization can play a decisive role in testing falsifiable hypotheses. We discuss seven different operationalizations of regime change based on three different conceptualizations of democracy. Although we find high correlations between different measures of democracy, when they are used to capture regime change, the correlations drop precipitously. In multivariate estimations of the effect of regime change on a range of conflict variables, we generate widely disparate results, providing no consistent support that democratization affects conflict. We thus demonstrate that decisions about conceptualization and subsequent operationalization have decisive impact on the inference we produce. In contrast, our controls for the effect of institutionalized democracy consistently show a negative relationship between joint democracy and conflict. Finally, autocratic regime change seems to be more robustly correlated with a range of conflict behaviors than heretofore recognized in this literature.     

‘Building democracy’ through foreign aid: The limitations of United States political conditionalities, 1992–96

This article examines the record of the United States government in promoting democratic reform through the manipulation of development aid flows between 1992 and 1996. The first section reviews the origins of the policy of political conditionality and the subsequent changes in the US Agency for International Development. The next section evaluates the policy's execution by considering trends in the volume and distribution of US official development assistance, statistical linkages between that aid and recipient democratization, and the relationship with other potential foreign policy goals. The study finds that, contrary to the government's pledges, democratic and democratizing states have not received a greater share of aid. Instead, the distribution has been closely linked with security concerns ‐ a pattern consistent with the cold war record ‐ and US economic self‐interests have also been evident. Finally, three obstacles to the policy of ‘building democracy’ are considered: domestic ambivalence over the US's grand strategy in the post‐cold war era; coexistent foreign policy objectives that conflict with democratization; and the practical difficulties of eliciting reform overseas through the blunt instrument of development assistance.     

The Promise of Democratic Pacification: An Empirical Assessment

Democracy and democratization have long been heralded as resolutions to coercive governance, but there are at least two ways in which they can influence state repressive activity. In one, both killing and restriction are reduced (i.e., behavior is "pacified"); in another, killing is diminished while political restrictions are continued (i.e., behavior is "tamed"). Much research has explored the first possibility, but none has addressed the second. Examining 137 countries from 1976 to 1996, I find that democracy generally pacifies state repression and that democratization tends to increase both forms of repressive behavior—especially political restrictions, which provides support for the taming argument. However, the impact of both variables is occasionally minimal, when compared against domestic and international conflict. Therefore, while one may look to democracy as a resolution to repression, it is clear that individuals must also consider the overarching political context when assessing relationships.     

Electoral Reforms and Peace Duration Following Negotiated Settlements

One of the most common features found within peace agreements is provisions that call for post-civil war elections. Unfortunately, the initial post-war elections often increase the risk of civil war recurrence. While past research has consistently confirmed this finding, it focuses only on one element of the democracy. Rather than focusing solely on elections, this article examines the laws surrounding the electoral process. Specifically, I examine how changes in electoral laws that are called for in peace agreements impacts the risk of renewed civil war. Building on research that examines the context of post-civil war elections, I argue that reforms to electoral laws that precede the initial post-war election substantially reduce the risks associated with that election. This proposition is supported with evidence from survival models of peace failures following the establishment of comprehensive peace agreements from 1989 to 2010, demonstrating that electoral reforms reduce the risk of civil war recurrence.     

Dyadic effects of democratization on international disputes

I explore the dyadic, as opposed to monadic, effect of democratizationon war. Using a simple repeated game of interstate interaction,I show that, as a state shifts towards democracy, its citizensaquire more opportunities and become more willing to removethose leaders that they expect will reduce their welfare. Rationalleaders anticipate this consequence, and their incentives tomaintain cooperative relationships with other democracies increaseas their states become democratic. The hypothesis drawn fromthe model predicts that democratization will have a pacifyingeffect in a dyadic relationship between democracies. Empiricaltesting is designed to isolate the dyadic effect from the monadicand to distinguish among competing hypotheses. The predictionsare tested with widely used data on political institutions andmilitarized interstate disputes. The result shows that democratizationindeed reduces the likelihood of waging war. However, this pacifyingeffect is largely attributed to the dyadic effect with a democraticopponent; the risk of war remains unchanged when facing a non-democraticopponent.     

Democracy and economy in Africa: The optimists and the pessimists

Democratization has come relatively late to Africa, but it has swept the continent which hitherto had mostly known only a brief period of liberal democracy immediately after independence. The pressure for democratization has come from the international community with the end of the cold war; and has been encouraged by aid conditionality; and from the peoples of Africa who have felt abused and repressed by other forms of rule in the intervening years. The survival of democracy is however far from assured: there are a number of arguments in its favour, but also a series of political problems. In addition democratization comes after a decade of economic hardship that has left Africa as the poorest continent in the world. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have promoted Structural Adjustment Programmes, (SAPS) but the international economic environment is generally hostile for Africa's development and structural adjustment has had only limited success. Thus in addition to the political problems of democratization, it is taking place in a harsh economic environment which could contribute to the long term undermining of the enterprise.     

Democracy through War?

This article brings together three strands of democracy research which have thus far seldom been informed by one another: the empirical research associated with the ‘democratic peace’ thesis, the juridical-normative questions of legality, and moral-philosophical reasoning about just war. Linking the statistical analysis of the democratic peace to the findings of comparative research on democratization and to the normative debates occurring in law and philosophy on just and legitimized wars, there is an inescapable conclusion that: jus ad bellum and jus post bellum criteria must be closely tied. The protection of people threatened by mass murder and brutal violations of human rights requires not only a short-term military intervention, but also the intensive support to establish sustainable rule of law and democracy. External actors intervening for humanitarian reasons equally have a duty to contribute to long-term sustainable state- and democracy-building. Forced regime change and an international trusteeship protectorate can become legitimate and necessary means to guarantee justice after war and to reconcile jus ad bellum principles with duties post bellum. A premature withdrawal of intervening forces, for example in Afghanistan or in Iraq, would amount to a flagrant violation of external actors' post-war duties.     

Post-conflict elections and the process of demilitarizing politics: the role of electoral administration

Post-conflict elections are called upon to advance the distinct processes of both war termination and democratization. This article examines the patterns in seven cases where elections served as the final step to implement a peace agreement following a period of civil war. Such elections are shaped in part by the legacy of fear and insecurity that persists in the immediate aftermath of a protracted internal conflict. Comparative analysis suggests that interim regimes in general, and electoral administration in particular, based on joint problem solving and consultation may ‘demilitarize politics’ and help transform the institutions of war into institutions capable of sustaining peace and democratization. In Mozambique, El Salvador and, to an extent, Cambodia, processes to demilitarize politics prior to elections created a context that allowed the elections to advance both peace and democratization. In the other cases, politics remained highly militarized at the time of the vote, leading either to renewed conflict (Angola) or the electoral ratification of the militarized institutions of the civil war (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liberia, Tajikistan). Interim electoral commissions provide an important opportunity to demilitarize politics by building consultative mechanisms and norms that increase confidence in the peace process and the legitimacy of the post-conflict elections.     

Perceived human rights and support for new democracies: lessons from Mexico

Political elites in emerging democracies are likely to promise improvements on human rights. From an empirical perspective, however, emerging democracies tend to perform rather poorly in this domain. Given this tension between elite rhetoric and performance, it is important to examine the extent to which citizens in emerging democracies evaluate democracy and new democratic leaders' performance on the bases of their perceptions of respect for human rights. This topic remains largely unexplored and conventional wisdom suggests that economic satisfaction, not human rights concerns, drives individuals' support for democracy. We aim to fill this gap in the literature by investigating the extent to which specific and diffuse political support is related to individuals' perceptions of respect for human rights in the context of an emerging democracy. Taking advantage of two representative survey data sets from Mexico from 2003 and 2010, our empirical findings suggest that citizens are more likely to support their president, their government and democratization when they believe that human rights are respected. By examining the relationship between democracy and human rights protections at the individual level, our research is a pioneering effort to better explain the interaction between the prospects of democratic consolidation and perceptions of human rights.