Harmony and Resilience: US Democracy Promotion's Basic Premises

Annika Elena Poppe

doi:10.1093/isafpa/ory017

Abstract

AbstractScholarship on US foreign policy regularly claims that US democracy promotion policy is informed by a coherent and harmonious set of basic premises. In this article, I first examine the validity of this claim for US post–Cold War administrations. I find operational in US foreign policy rhetoric three stable premises: that democracy is a universal(ly aspired to) principle, that external democracy promoters are legitimately involving themselves in another country's political affairs, and that this policy endeavor is in the best interest of all involved stakeholders. Following theoretical expectations that culture and cultural aspects are relatively stable and adaptable entities and promote stability in behavior, I then pursue the question of how these premises have fared in an environment particularly challenging to their validity, namely in the case of US democracy promotion in Egypt. I show how, even in light of contradictory evidence, the basic premises remain resilient and function as a discursive structure that enables and constrains policy options.

Highlights

It has often been argued that a very significant influence on US democracy promotion policy is a powerful and compelling US national identity and a specific set of coherent and harmonious premises and expectations shaped by this identity.1 It has further been speculated that these premises are so deeply entrenched and relevant that, against many odds and pressures for significant adjustments, US democracy promotion policy has been characterized by continuity rather than by change sinceDr Annika Elena Poppe is a project director and senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) https://www.hsfk.de/en/staff/employees/annika-elena-poppe/
The analysis has shown that the United States is constrained in its foreign policy toward an autocratic regime
The basic premises of US democracy promotion have turned out to be remarkably resistant in light of severe and repeated challenges to their validity in US relations with Egypt

Summary

Introduction

It has often been argued that a very significant influence on US democracy promotion policy is a powerful and compelling US national identity and a specific set of coherent and harmonious premises and expectations shaped by this identity. It has further been speculated that these premises are so deeply entrenched and relevant that, against many odds and pressures for significant adjustments, US democracy promotion policy has been characterized by continuity rather than by change since. The difficult case of US democracy promotion policy in Egypt under the Bush and Obama administrations serves as an example, and I show how the basic premises were manifested and reproduced rhetorically. The article focuses on the manifestation and flexibility of democracy promotion’s basic premises in official statements by the Bush and Obama administrations and discusses these within the challenging and changing political context characterizing US democracy promotion policy in Egypt. In great similarity to the Bush period, pointing to Egyptians’ universal rights and their struggle to achieve these regularly became the basis of US involvement in the political process being appropriate and legitimate, even necessary.18 Both major political turning points in Egypt during the Obama administration—the ouster of Mubarak and of democratically elected Morsi—were, despite all their differences, interpreted in the same light, namely as necessary responses to the unfulfilled legitimate aspirations and needs of the Egyptian people..

20 For example

Summary and Comparison

21 Similarly

Conclusion