What the Democratization Literature Says—or Doesn’t Say—About Postwar Democratization

Abstract

Herodotus was probably right when he argued wars make history, but whether and when wars make democracy remain open questions. The classics in democratization literature are surprisingly reticent about links between war and lasting democracy. Most of our theoretical literature on democratic transitions or democratic consolidation leaves connection to war either wholly neglected or seriously undertheorized. This perplexing because so many new and renewed democracies emerge in context of war. Of seventy-three democracies founded after 1945 still exist today, over half emerged either in immediate aftermath of a war or as a means of bringing an ongoing war to an end. Table 1 shows how many electoral democracies emerged in a setting. The cases in Table 1 are electoral democracies--meaning they are regimes in which leaders are selected in competitive elections. If we define democracy more strictly and consider only cases in which a full (or nearly full) range of individual liberties provided, pattern same. Half of all regimes formed after World War II are still in existence today were formed in immediate aftermath of war (see Table 2). The percentage of free regimes were founded in settings was as high ten years ago as it today, so existence of postwar democracies far from new. (1) The subject of democratization after war clearly worthy of close attention. What do we currently know (or think we know) about how war affects democratization? What does democratization literature teach us about building democracy in settings? I sketch brief answers to both of these questions in following sections. For purposes of this article, my definition of democracy corresponds to definition used often in canon of democratization literature: democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable . . . by citizens acting indirectly through competition and cooperation of their elected representatives. (2) Though I acknowledge this a minimalist version of a much more complex and multifaceted phenomenon, I focus on electoral democracy because it defines a politically important and numerically large subset of regimes. Can War Be Good for Democracy? The democratization literature portrays association between war and transition to democracy as broadly positive. Indeed, wars seem to be associated with democratic transitions whether state in question vanquished, victorious, or simply a partner in an inconclusive struggle. It ironic a devastating seems to be an especially propitious setting for a transition to be made. Yet several scholars have marshaled sound evidence in favor of this proposition. They remind us the great majority of historical examples of successful redemocratization ... are ones in which and conquest play an integral part (3) conquest by a democratic power allows for dismantling of problematic military and political institutions; (4) that military failure contributed to downfall or weakening of at least five authoritarian regimes between 1974 and l989 (5); and defeat in warfare often precipitates elite settlements lasting democracy requires. (6) The defeats l ead most readily to a democratic regime change are devastating ones in which are thoroughly replaced. (7) Authoritarian regimes conduct a war successfully may be toppled too. Victory in wars against subversion can eliminate a dictatorship's raison d'etre and provoke a crisis of legitimacy. (8) Surprisingly, elites who face neither victory nor may still make transition to democracy if their armed struggle appears to be both costly and inconclusive. (9) Theorists insist elite compromise democracy requires emerges when leaders recognize that next round of conflict likely to visit disaster on all sides. …