International Democracy Assistance Research Articles

The Party Abroad, the World of Professional Electoral and Democracy Assistance, and the Way Forward

Abstract This article presents developments around the party abroad phenomenon within the world of international democracy assistance. It provides an overview of where ‘the party abroad’ sits as a topic within the broader field of democracy assistance, and how democracy assistance providers have addressed it in the past. It argues that even though the party abroad has grown among political parties themselves, it has thus far received scant attention from democracy assistance providers. However, there are reasons to believe that the party abroad will continue to grow among political parties and that assistance providers will also include a stronger focus on the party abroad in their work in years to come.

Japan’s International Democracy Assistance as Soft Power: Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Japan’s International Democracy Assistance as Soft Power: Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Japan’s International Democracy Assistance as Soft Power: Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Japan’s International Democracy Assistance as Soft Power: Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Is Democracy in Decline?

Is Democracy in Decline? Marc F. Plattner (bio) Since the publication of its inaugural issue in January 1990, the Journal of Democracy has published well over a thousand articles, exploring all aspects of the workings of democracy and the struggles of democratic movements. But we have been especially concerned with tracking democracy’s advances and setbacks around the world. For 25 years, we have been “taking the temperature” of democracy. Since 1998, we have published annually an article summarizing Freedom House’s survey of Freedom in the World, and we have featured numerous other essays analyzing democracy’s global trajectory, beginning with Samuel P. Huntington’s classic 1991 article introducing the concept of the “third wave” of democratization. So it should not be unexpected that we turn to this subject as the central theme of our twenty-fifth anniversary issue. Some may be surprised, however, by the headline on our cover—“Is Democracy in Decline?”—which faithfully reflects the way in which we posed the question to our contributors. For a journal that is unabashedly in favor of democracy, this obviously is not the kind of celebratory theme that might be preferred for marking a historic milestone. Yet this seemed to be the question that everyone was asking as 2015 approached, and we decided that it deserved a thorough examination. Tracing the viewpoints and opinions expressed over the years in the Journal (especially on its five-year anniversaries) suggests how evaluations of and sentiments about the state of democracy have evolved since 1990. The editors’ introduction that Larry Diamond and I wrote for the inaugural issue was animated by the view that democracy was experiencing a “remarkable worldwide resurgence,” but also by a concern that [End Page 5] it lagged behind its rivals with respect to political ideas and organization. Five eventful years later, we recognized not only that democracy had spread to many more countries but also that it had hugely improved its standing in terms of ideas and organization. We asserted that democracy had “gained enormous ground” with respect to “international legitimacy” and that it now “reign[ed] supreme in the ideological sphere.” Multilateral organizations were increasingly endorsing democratic principles, and a whole new field of international democracy assistance had emerged. At the turn of the century, these trends seemed only to be growing stronger. In introducing a special tenth-anniversary issue on “Democracy in the World” modeled on Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, we argued that Tocqueville had supplanted Marx and concluded, “We are all Tocquevilleans now.” By 2005, however, our tone had grown far more downbeat, and we acknowledged a darkening mood among supporters of democracy. We attributed this in part to the travails of democracy-building in postinvasion Iraq and to Russia’s descent back into authoritarianism, but argued that the overall global trends were mixed and did not justify discouragement among democrats. By 2010, we were prepared to grant that “there now may even be grounds for speaking of an erosion of freedom over the past few years, though its dimensions are very slight.” Confronting Decline Yet here in our twenty-fifth anniversary issue, we feel compelled to confront head-on the question of whether democracy is in decline. Why? There are two aspects to the answer, which although intertwined are in some measure separable. The first deals with what is actually taking place on the ground: How many countries are democratic? Is their number rising or shrinking? What is the situation with respect to such liberal-democratic features as freedom of the press, rule of law, free and fair elections, and the like? The second, more subjective, aspect concerns the standing of democracy in the world: How is it viewed in terms of legitimacy and attractiveness? It is in this latter dimension that the evidence, or at least the widespread perception, of decline is most striking. As readers will see, the first dimension is open to differing interpretations. The divergence among them is most sharply posed by comparing Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way’s essay on “The Myth of Democratic Recession” with Larry Diamond’s on the need for “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession.” Levitsky and Way point out that...

Democratic crisis or crisis of confidence? What local perceptual lenses tell us about Madagascar's 2009 political crisis

This paper explores the extent to which democratic values and institutions propagated by the international community and measured by influential governance indices correlate with local perceptions of politics and democracy in one eastern region of Madagascar. A careful reading of the political crisis that erupted in Madagascar in 2009 highlights how ‘undemocratic’ behaviour – a ‘coup’ even – can have roots in democratic desires that have little to do with elections. I argue that local perceptual lenses, identifiable by characteristic competences and dispositions, have considerable interpretive significance regarding what might otherwise be labelled deviant behaviour in unconsolidated or hybrid democracies. Using qualitative data collected using an innovative methodology during five months of ethnographic fieldwork immediately preceding the crisis, this paper examines the interface between international democracy assistance policies and mass local political perceptions. It concludes that long-term prospects for deepening democracy in Africa and elsewhere depend in part on how – and how well – external experts strategically engage with the communities they propose to reform.

Democracy around the World

Winston Churchill famously said that is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.1 This appears to be a popular conclusion as people in a growing number of countries seek to establish democratic systems of self-go vemment. In each society democracy takes on a different expression, but the core elements of regular elections, civic and human rights protections, and alternation of power among factions or parties are common goals.From activists in societies with little or no democratic experience, there has come an outreach to older democracies such as Canada, Britain, France, and the United States for technical assistance and support to bund the domestic institutions necessary to sustain new democratic governments. Similar, more poignant requests have come from dissidents under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes seeking solidarity and support from free people abroad. In the 19th century, colonial empires brought democratic principles and institutions from Europe to new continents, from North America to Africa and Asia, where they had limited success. In the 20th century, the Second World War and the subsequent Cold War pitted democratic governments against different forms of totalitarianism (fascism and communism, principally), adding geostrategic urgency to the support for democratic governments in West Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey, and elsewhere.Then, in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, President George W Bush made the promotion of democracy a central element of the US response to global terrorism. His efforts built on those of previous US presidents, from William Howard Taft to Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, and echoed the rhetoric of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Bush was mostly increasing the scale and scope of US democracy assistance efforts and not adding something new. Nevertheless, support for developing democracies around the world became associated with Bush and his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in such a way that many people began to pay attention to democracy assistance for the first time, and many took away a poor first impression of its practice.Canada was in the vanguard of the 19th-century British empire when it came to promoting the principles of responsible government at home and abroad. Canada's great experiment in designing a federal variation of the Westminster model to accommodate English- and French-Canadian aspirations in a continent- spanning became the model for the establishment of governments with dominion status in Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the pre-Canadian Newfoundland. During the First and Second World Wars as well as the Cold War, Canada was a stalwart on the side of the democracies.Yet after 2001, many Canadians harboured doubts about the provision of democracy assistance abroad. This was certainly in part a reaction to the Bush administration's embrace of the field, but it also reflected an uncertainty about what this assistance involves, as well as the damaging misperception that democracy assistance was a new and risky idea cooked up by neoconservatives in Washington, DC. Despite a long tradition of support for democracy at home and abroad, Canada stood out among western, democratic countries because it had no formal democracy assistance agency or institution, and many talented Canadians found work in democracy assistance organizations outside the country.In 2006 and 2007, the Canadian house of commons standing committee on foreign affairs and international development held hearings on contemporary best practices for the assistance of democratic development by aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations around the world. Committee members heard testimony from some ofthe Canadian specialists working abroad, and from international democracy assistance practitioners in Denmark, Finland, Britain, Sweden, Norway, and the United States, as well as at the United Nations. …

Exploring democracy in the Russian Federation: political regime, public opinion and international assistance

This article discusses three questions: what is the purpose of ‘democratic’ institutions and practices in Russia's authoritarian political system; how do these institutions and practices resonate with Russian public opinion; and how do they relate to the international democracy-promotion effort in the country? Democratic institutions have more than a façade, a legitimizing role to play under authoritarianism. They are relevant to the actual functioning of the regime. State–society relations in Russia should not be understood in exclusively dichotomous terms. This would underestimate the measure of popular legitimacy of the incumbent regime in Russia, as it misinterprets popular perceptions of political democracy. Russians deplore their lack of influence over what happens in their own country; they are strongly dissatisfied with their human rights situation, but they do not translate this into a widely shared commitment to civil liberties. Judging from regime features and popular opinion in Russia, the poor record of international democracy assistance in Russia may not come as a surprise. Compared with ‘traditional’ democracy assistance, rule of law support corresponds more closely with the (limited) capabilities of external actors, with the priorities of the Russian citizens as well as with the self-declared ambitions and international commitments of the Russian leadership.

Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental?

Two distinct approaches to international democracy assistance have emerged in recent years: the political approach and the developmental approach. They vary with respect to their underlying conceptions of democracy and democratization and their methods and areas of focus. U.S. democracy promotion makes use of both approaches; European democracy support efforts largely favor the developmental approach. Neither approach is necessarily preferable overall; both have multiple strengths and weaknesses. The existence of two core approaches is evidence that democracy aid is diversifying to adapt to a more challenging international political landscape. Democracy-aid providers are moving away from one-size-fits-all strategies and are adapting their programs to diverse political contexts. Two distinct overall approaches to assisting democracy have emerged in response.

International Democracy Assistance for Peacebuilding: Cambodia and Beyond

International Democracy Assistance for Peacebuilding: Cambodia and Beyond

From Evaluating Democracy Assistance to Appraising Democracy Promotion

Organisations involved in delivering international democracy assistance are engaging increasingly with questions about how to assess their activities. A double shift in the terms of reference, from the ex post evaluation of assistance projects or programmes to ex ante appraisal of the broader democracy promotion strategies, could make democracy promotion more effective. This does not mean abandoning the former; on the contrary its status would be enhanced. Improving the chain of learning that leads from assistance evaluations to the formulation of promotion strategies could improve decision-making over how and whether to promote democracy abroad. Because strategies for democracy promotion are constitutive of the political relationship with countries, different strategies have different implications for the possibilities of political self-determination. For that reason and because democratisation and hence effective democracy promotion may be beneficial for human development, international peace and national security, strategies that reflect informed appraisal would be an improvement on a defective status quo. The challenges include: more systematic data gathering; innovative ways of comparing the various democracy promotion options; and institutional changes that connect the research findings to the high politics of policy-making.

Democracy Assistance to Domestic Election Monitoring Organizations: Conditions for Success

Can the international community effectively promote and support – sometimes even create – domestic civil society? Supporting civic reformers is now a common practice in the international democratization policy repertoire. Behind this practice lies the idea that strengthening civic actors improves the chances for democratic transition and consolidation. This article investigates conditions for successful democracy assistance to civic actors through comparative study of six domestic election monitoring organizations in the Americas. The article argues that both international and domestic context matter. A history of soft power (diplomatic, normative) intervention and low internal polarization create relatively favourable conditions for democracy assistance to civic actors. In cases with a history of hard power intervention (such as use of force or economic sanctions) and high political polarization, intervening variables, such as multilateral provision of democracy assistance and pluralistic structures and behaviours on the part of aid recipients, can surmount unfavourable conditions for international democracy assistance. In the absence of such mitigating conditions, democracy assistance to civic actors may be ill-advised.

Parliaments and the enhancement of democracy on the African continent: An analysis of institutional capacity and public perceptions

While modern parliaments in Africa receive little attention in the scholarly literature, they are drawing considerable attention from the international donor community. Since the early 1990s, when many African countries resumed multi-party elections and democratic practices, legislative strengthening programmes have become an important part of international democracy assistance. Despite these programmes, our knowledge about Africa's current parliaments remains limited. They seem to be widely regarded as potential agents for democratic change but whether national legislatures are in fact enhancing the quality of democracy on the African continent is far from clear. This study discusses two important issues that lie at the heart of the democracy-enhancing potential of Africa's current parliaments: their institutional capacity and the way they are perceived by the citizens they represent. After a brief review of the existing literature on legislatures in Africa, the essay first considers whether they have the institutional capacity to fulfil a meaningful role and provides a detailed description of the autonomy of parliaments in 16 selected countries. It then turns to the way Africans perceive and evaluate their parliaments. Do citizens see their legislatures as valuable institutions? Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for the prospects of African parliaments becoming agents of democratic change.

Projects do not create institutions: The record of democracy assistance in post-conflict societies

This article argues that the lack of focus on institution-building greatly limits the impact of international democracy assistance to post-conflict societies. After ten years of international support, key domestic electoral, human rights and media institutions remain politically biased, are largely unaccountable to their members or society in general, are not transparent in their operations, have no substantial influence on decision making and are in most cases financially unsustainable. Focusing on international assistance to elections, human rights and media, the article reviews the practical experiences of eight post-conflict countries: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, El Salvador and Guatemala. Drawing from the recent work of local research teams within a major comparative research project, it concludes that international assistance has been instrumental in setting up new organizations, but relatively unsuccessful in consolidating effective democratic institutions. Findings show that post-conflict democracy programmes consist mainly of technical, material and financial assistance as well as short-term project aid. This aid may have spurred the growth of many training activities and NGOs that excel in organizing workshops and seminars, but proves unsustainable and largely insignificant in the wider process of democratization. Finally, the international community's ‘democracy template’ seems particularly ill-suited to achieve democracy in post-conflict countries. Focusing on short-term stability, new leadership is legitimized during well-funded elections, but key issues of political control and regulation often remain unaddressed. As a result, a real impact of international assistance on democratic change remains elusive in most post-conflict countries.