Seeking to embed democracy: tracing the substantial evolution of the European Union’s democracy promotion, 2004–2020

Latin America does not hold a prominent place in the literature on European Union (EU) democracy promotion (Youngs 2008, Magen et al. 2009), and experts on EU-Latin America relations do not tend to focus on democracy promotion either (Freres 2000, Grugel 2004, Gratius 2011). The scarce literature on EU democracy promotion in Latin America suggests that these policies and activities are not seen as relevant, or do not inspire a demand for more bilateral engagement in this area. Possible justifications are that Latin America has been on the right track in its democratization process, or that local actors or other donors already do enough. Is the concern with EU democracy promotion in Latin America, then, simply ‘much ado about nothing’?

This book studies the substance of European Union (EU) democracy promotion, a very pertinent study indeed today. While EU democracy promotion is much talked about — including its contribution to the EU’s ‘normative power’ role in world politics — its content has received comparatively little scholarly attention. This is problematic because the EU’s broad range of activities in support of democracy cannot be assumed to be ‘consistent and coherent’, even as the EU itself constantly calls for the manifestation of such qualities.

What types of democracy are impacted by European Union (EU) democracy promotion? Although the EU is a major democracy promoter globally, little is known about which types of democracy it impacts. This article pioneers an examination of the impact of EU aid on V-Dem’s five distinct democracy indices in the European neighbourhood from 2000 to 2020, using both aggregated and disaggregated panel data analysis for a comparative assessment. Based on a novel synthesis of rational choice theory and political legitimacy, the study hypothesizes that electoral democracy will be particularly associated with EU-provided aid. The findings reveal that EU aid is positively associated with electoral, egalitarian, deliberative, and participatory forms of democracy, however show no significant association with liberal democracy. This contribution emphasizes the relevance of disaggregated research to better understand the relationship between aid and democracy and highlights the importance of considering various democracy types when assessing EU democracy promotion.

This article contrasts European Union (EU) democracy promotion policy in Africa with the reality of its implementation in Ghana. The rhetorical vigour of EU democracy promotion policy is outlined initially, followed by an investigation into EU democracy and governance assistance in Ghana, inclusive of European Community and member states' support. It is found that the policy is high on rhetoric but remains low on delivery. It is argued that if policy performance is poor in Ghana, a favourable political environment, then it is unlikely to be better elsewhere in Africa. Three explanatory propositions of the rhetoric-reality gap are outlined, one bureaucratic, one political and one economic, and then applied to the Ghana case. Conclusions are two-fold. First, the EU's political activities in Africa are driven more by its self-interests than by the norms and principles of democratic governance. Second, democracy is narrowly conceived by the EU, being more concerned with limiting state power than extending pop...

In the 2019 European Union (EU) renewed Strategy for Central Asia, the promotion of democracy in the post-soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is singled out as one of the key priorities. This article aims to examine whether there is an alignment between the EU self-perception on democracy promotion and its external perception in local media. The question is addressed through quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the EU key documents for Central Asia and local media outlets from 2019 to 2022, using the Nvivo software. The research findings indicate that both self- and external perceptions align in the context of the EU human rights promotion for Central Asia. Drawing upon these findings, this article argues that the EU democracy promotion endeavours are predominantly grasped in Central Asia within the sphere of human rights, while comprehension of other facets of the EU democracy promotion agenda remains intricate. Consequently, as the EU normative agenda faces ongoing scrutiny within Central Asia, it is advocated that the EU undertake a thorough reassessment of its approach in the region, aiming to foster deeper understanding and alignment with local perceptions.

‘Think globally, act locally.’ Considering the recent trend to open the ‘black box’ of external democracy promotion, this could be the new slogan for international actors engaged in promoting democracy in different parts of the world. Both practitioners and scholars alike have begun to consider different country contexts in which external democracy promotion can take place (cf. European Commission 2003b, 2006g; McFaul, Magen and Stoner-Weiss 2008; White House 2006). They are especially interested in knowing the chances of success of different strategies. A first step towards a comprehensive impact assessment is to investigate the link between domestic, country-specific conditions and international democracy promotion efforts. So, how do democracy promotion efforts of external actors relate to the varying political situations on the ground? In this chapter, we systematically compare democracy promotion efforts of the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) across countries in the Mediterranean and the post-Soviet space since the early 1990s. Beyond a comparison between the two ‘powers’ (cf. Kagan 2003), our analysis seeks to capture if and how their efforts vary according to the specific political settings of Morocco, Tunisia, Belarus and Ukraine.

The rise of China in Africa is often described as a major challenge to the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) democracy promotion policies. China is accused of providing important volumes of loans, development aid, trade and investments without “political strings” attached, thereby undermining the US and the EU's possibilities to set material incentives for reforms. This article investigates Ethiopia and Angola as two cases where one would expect that the growing presence of China has made it more difficult for the EU and US to support reforms. Empirical findings presented in this article go against this argument. In both countries, the EU and the US face substantial difficulties to make the respective government address governance issues. However, the presence of China has not made it more difficult for the US and the EU to implement their strategies. Instead the empirical analysis suggests that domestic factors in Ethiopia and Angola, notably the level of challenge to regime survival both governments face, influence both governments’ willingness to engage with the EU and US.

The European Union (EU) has consistently positioned itself as a committed normative power, dedicated to the promotion of liberal democratic values both within its borders and beyond. In this context, promotion of democracy stands as a fundamental objective of its foreign policy, and it leverages a variety of tools to exert influence. The post-Socialist Balkans serves as a critical testing ground for the EU's efforts in this domain. Since the early 2000s, the Union has embarked on a dual process of Europeanisation and post-conflict transformation within the region where the state of democracy remains still problematic. This article provides an evaluation of the EU's democracy promotion policy in the Republic of Serbia. Recognizing the EU’s limited success in democratizing the Republic of Serbia, it delves into the underlying reasons for the shortcomings. The analysis posits that the EU's failure in Serbia can be attributed to three primary factors: an inconsistent approach, a shifting focus during crises, and the impact of opportunistic actors.

The European Union (EU) aims for a comprehensive approach to security in developing countries. As a result, attempts have been made to enhance the nexus between the EU's security policy and other policy areas, particularly development, humanitarian assistance, and democratic governance. This article analyses the EU's comprehensive approach in the case of Chad, focusing on two questions. First, has the EU's comprehensive approach been able to supersede the compartmentalisation of the EU's political system? Second, has it led to the securitisation of non-security policy areas? These questions are answered by investigating the nexus between the EU's security, democracy, development and humanitarian aid policies in Chad from 2006 onwards. This analysis confirms the compartmentalisation scenario, especially regarding development and humanitarian aid where the relation with security policies was at times openly conflicting. While the EU's democracy promotion policies are found to be securitised, this is not the case for development and humanitarian aid.

The purpose of this book has been to map and explain the substance of European Union (EU) democracy promotion. The adapted framework of embedded liberal democracy provided the analytical framework for the mapping exercise, whereas the four hypotheses guided the authors’ search for explanations (see the introductory chapter). Based on our systematic and comparative analysis involving the EU’s policy towards 22 countries, this concluding chapter will formulate a number of general conclusions. We find that the ‘default substance’ of the EU’s democracy promotion is output-oriented, specifically targeting ‘socio-economic development’ and ‘state administrative capacity’. Partial regimes, and in particular ‘horizontal accountability’ and ‘effective power to govern’, tend to be under-addressed.

When the so-called Arab Spring exploded, the scholarly debate on the European Union (EU) and democracy promotion gained momentum, drawing attention to the EU initiatives supporting democratic refor...

In the last decades the promotion of democracy and governance became a major component of western governments’ and multilateral organisations‘ foreign policies. Gradually external democracy promotion became a vast field of research in political science and transformation studies. While much scientific research focuses on instruments and strategies of multilateral donor institutions, such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU), the African Development Bank Group (AfDB) is to date subject to few researches. The thesis offers new empirical insights into actors‘ implementation and strategies of development and political aid to Morocco, with a strong focus on the actors‘ orientation, identity and will and contributes to a more systematic research on non-western actors‘ role in external aid. The focus lies on the different conceptualisation and implementation of EU and AfDB democracy and governance assistance regarding the donors‘ operational and strategic orientations. Morocco was chosen as an appropriate country cases study, because the country is the largest recipient of EU bilateral aid within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the most important regional client of the AfDB. The thesis demonstrates that donors adopt technocratic approaches and understandings of democracy and governance. Consequently, objectives of democracy and governance promotion are conflicting or competing and political aid, including democracy and governance promotion, becomes more technocratic and depoliticised. Thus, the actors‘ orientation and modes of interaction limit the implementation of external political aid to a technical-operational level.

This article analyses the European Union (EU)'s engagement in Armenia through policy frameworks (mainly the Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership) and practices, focusing on the correspondence between words and actions in democracy promotion. The article argues that the EU's role in democracy promotion in Armenia has provided grounds for fundamental improvements, but has also been facing several constraints, which result both from the relationships that are developed with local actors in Armenia and the two-way inter-connections that result from these, as well as the regional context where EU engagement is focused, which goes beyond Armenia to include transnational dynamics in the South Caucasus. The article builds on the authors' extensive field research in Armenia and on the analysis of important documents framing EU–Armenia relations in order to deconstruct the narratives and processes that underlie policy definition, as well as the mismatch between wording and implementation. This analysis aims to shed light on the EU's role in democracy promotion in Armenia in the context of its possibilities and limitations.

ABSTRACTIn order to better understand the dynamics of international cooperation on democracy promotion with authoritarian regimes, this article looks into the processes and results of negotiations on democracy (promotion) between the European Union (EU) and two of its North African neighbours (Morocco, Tunisia) in the decade leading up to the Arab uprisings. Asking if, how, and to what effect the EU and its Mediterranean partners have negotiated issues related to democracy promotion, it analyses official documents issued on the occasion of their respective association council meetings in 2000-2010. It shows that partners have indeed addressed these issues since the early 2000s, however, without engaging in substantive exchanges. Most of the time, conflicts have been neither directly addressed nor resolved. Where there are traces of actual negotiations leading to an agreement, these are clearly based on a logic of bargaining rather than arguing. These findings challenge the picture of harmony and cooperation between the EU and Morocco. Furthermore, they point to the low quality of these exchanges which reinforces the dilemma of international democracy promotion in cooperation with authoritarian regimes.

Disciplinary debates about the challenge of liberal democracy in the Mediterranean suggest that the underlying constraints in the region, such as the nature of authoritarian regimes, economic underdevelopment, and the nature of rentier states, pose severe tests for external actors like the European Union (EU) seeking to encourage political reform. These debates have, however, failed to address the question of how and why liberal democracy per se achieved normative status. This article seeks to take this debate forward by examining the substance of the EU's efforts at democracy promotion in the Mediterranean. It does this first by explaining the EU's diagnosis of the Mediterranean ‘condition’, which highlights the logic behind the EU's prescription for democratization specifically in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This sheds light, second, on the inherent paradoxes and contradictions in the EU's push for democracy in the MENA. The article concludes by arguing that EU actions limit any potential for normative impact in the MENA because of the lack of coherence in EU policy.