Promotion Of Liberal Democracy Research Articles

Historical Memory in the Context of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Presidency of Joseph Biden

Modern day politicians often refer to historical memory in order to construct and/or adjust foreign policy. The analysis of historical memory as one of the tools for constructing foreign policy narratives is attracting increasing scientific interest in the study of international relations. Under conditions of deep socio-political split in the USA and fragmentation of American identity, representatives of the Democratic administration actively turn to historical memory, trying to explain the changing international realities and justify the implemented foreign policy course. The article attempts to identify the key historical narratives of the Biden Administration and analyze how their use influences the foreign policy of the U.S. at the present stage. To achieve this goal, the authors used the method of narrative interpretation to conduct a qualitative analysis of a broad source base (speeches, interviews, press conferences of key representatives of the U.S. executive branch). As a result, a number of foreign policy narratives with the most characteristic historical subjects for the current administration were identified. It has been established that U.S. leaders address historical memory as part of discourses on the promotion of liberal democracy in the world; the limits of “hard power” and the fight against international terrorism; human rights and freedoms; relations with Russia; and the defense of a liberal world order. It is determined that historical narratives are often used by the United States to legitimize its unilateral and discriminatory foreign policy actions. The authors conclude that for the current administration the construction of foreign policy narratives through selective reference to the subjects of American historical memory becomes one of the key tools of adaptation to the development of international multipolarity, mobilization of its resources and consolidation of allies to defend the “free world” from “illiberal” opponents.

The China Effect: Democracy and Development in the 21st Century

The China Effect:Democracy and Development in the 21st Century Obert Hodzi (bio) The basic tenets of democracy are under threat worldwide as governance and human rights re-emerge as sources of ideological contention between China and the United States. Freedom House reported that between 2005 and 2020, "the number of Free countries in the world reached its lowest level…while the number of Not Free countries reached its highest level."1 African countries are prominent in this ideological contention due to their political and economic proximity to both powers. The majority of countries that Freedom House found to have regressed are in Africa and, in particular, sub-Saharan Africa, where since 2010 there have been fourteen successful military coups, most recently in Chad, Mali, Guinea, and Sudan. In all these countries, militaries re-emerged as political players in the countries' governance, shrinking the space for civil society and civilian politics. Africa is not alone, however; democracy faced major setbacks from ultra-nationalism, populist regimes, threats to minority rights, and attacks on the freedom of the press even in European Union countries such as Hungary and Poland. At the core of these challenges to democracy and political freedom is the shifting balance of power from the West to China, suggesting a showdown between authoritarianism and democracy. Undoubtedly, the emergence of nondemocratic powers such as China that contest the assumption "democracy leads to development" adds new complexities to democracy's global crisis. In short, China's extraordinary economic growth illustrated the efficacy of a strong developmental state without political pluralism. Accordingly, as China increases its influence abroad—particularly in Africa—concern is rising in the West that "the share of international power held by highly industrialized democracies is dwindling as the clout of China, India, and other newly industrialized economies increases."2 As such, an [End Page 51] understanding of what and how exactly China's rise impacts democracy and development is necessary. The "China effect" on democracy and development is complex, in part because China does not seem to actively promote its governance and development model abroad. This approach is different from the United States and the EU, which promote democracy and human rights as part of their foreign policy, including as conditions for foreign aid and bilateral development assistance. Instead, China professes a policy of noninterference and makes no demands for states to align themselves with its norms or governance model, except to acknowledge the "one China" policy. This noninterference policy seemingly offers less to understand how China is challenging the global democratic hegemony and restructuring international development. This essay highlights China's strategies to expand its influence and how they are playing out in Africa. It examines the linkages between the rise of China, internal contradictions in the West, and the resolve in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and Rwanda to implement alternative development and governance models. China is at the intersection of these factors. Although the essay focuses on China, it cautions against an exaggerated focus on China and the overestimation of Beijing's capacity to mold the world into China's own image; instead, it urges an agency-focused perspective to emphasize the strategic localization of nondemocratic political norms and practices by political elites in the three African countries—Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. These three states are examples of countries that strategically adopt a major power's policies and attractive example to extract benefits from that power. The essay concludes that China constitutes both a threat to democracy and sustainable economic development and at the same time an opportunity for refining redundant liberal norms and ideas. China's Influence Expansion Strategies Despite its extraordinary economic growth, China acknowledges that its military and economic power are insufficient to directly challenge the liberal international order, which underwrites the West's promotion of liberal democracy and the basic principles of international development. China also lacks the historical political connections to developing regions—and African countries in particular—possessed by the United States and European states such as France, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. However, China is pragmatic: it is using its economic capabilities [End Page 52] to create "parallel infrastructures of influence" to the Western-created global institutions, such as the grand...

The Production of North American and German Democracy Promotion Expertise: A Practice Theoretical Analysis

Abstract In international relations, there is regular reflection about the complex relations between academic and various kinds of practical knowledge. In this article, we add to these reflections using the example of democracy promotion expertise. We develop a practice–theoretical methodology based on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and extensions of it in the communities of practice literature. We also include a comparative dimension by studying epistemic practices in North America and Germany. Our analysis shows the importance of knowledge translating between academia and democracy promotion practice and the prestige and capital of roaming experts who cross epistemic boundaries that otherwise divide actors. To varying degrees, roaming experts contribute to practice-oriented translations of academic insights and the identification of problems stemming from ongoing practice that are important in democracy promotion. We show that processes of problem construction are regulated by conventions that homogenize epistemic practices and evidence, with only selective attention paid to emancipatory demands or epistemes from the Global South. While our research shows some epistemes and demands conflict with Western norms, Global South epistemes and demands are most often turned into arguments for further liberal democracy promotion.

The Patterns of Democracy in Context of Historical Political Science

The patterns of democracy are related to the success or failure of national governance; hence, they are a key topic in the theoretical research of political science. It is difficult to comprehend the worldwide political conflicts caused by the promotion of liberal democracy in the study of democratic models that have liberal democracy as their core. The emphasis of historical political science on the genes of civilization provides an opportunity to reinterpret the patterns of democracy. Relying on specific civilization genes, the patterns of democracy can be divided into the “value pattern”, which is shaped by historical civilization genes, and the “practice pattern”, which is based on the “value pattern”. Based on Christian concepts, Western civilization produced liberal democracy as the value pattern, and the value is inherited through the practice pattern of party democracy. Chinese civilization has continued the tradition of people-orientation and consultative practice, establishing socialist democracy in value and consultative democracy in practice. Theoretically, the analytical framework of the value pattern and the practice pattern of democracy illustrates the source of the diverse patterns of democracy, which helps demonstrate the limitations of liberal democracy and points out the possibility of developing a non-liberal democracy pattern.

Russia’s Policies in the Post-Soviet Space: Between Constructive Relations and Fighting the New Cold War

Abstract The article challenges the view that Russia’s goal in the post-Soviet space is to make the region an exclusive zone of Russian influence and keep other world powers out entirely. In fact, Russia has two policies towards the influence of other powers that are active in the region: a ‘business as usual’ approach, applied to China and Turkey; and a securitized ‘New Cold War policy’, applied to the US and West (especially towards their presence in Ukraine). Growing Chinese and Turkish influence has not been ‘securitized’, although the presence of both powers creates clear obstacles to the reintegration of former Soviet countries around Russia. The article draws on three bodies of literature (Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism) to explain this variation. While Moscow perceives growing Western influence in Ukraine as a threat to its domestic regime and identity as a great power and regional leader, it finds common ground with Beijing and Ankara in its concerns about the Western liberal democracy promotion agenda and views both powers as potential allies in the construction of a ‘multipolar world’.

Biometrics and the disciplining of democracy: technology, electoral politics, and liberal interventionism in Chad

ABSTRACT In a large number of countries in Africa, biometric identification technologies have become a key element of voter registration procedures. Based on an in-depth study of biometric voter registration in Chad, a country marked by a long history of political violence, the article explains how the technology has been construed as a “solution” to address a situation labelled as a political crisis. To make sense of the unlikely introduction of biometrics in Chad, two main elements are considered: the socially constituted belief in the potential of biometrics and – paradoxically – the unfulfilled promises and fallibility of that same technology. Combining the literature on biometrics, election technologies, and liberal democracy promotion, the analysis concludes that biometric voter registration is a disciplining technology. In addition to capturing the personal data of individuals, it fosters the framing of democracy in narrow technological and procedural terms.

Biometric voter registration: A new modality of democracy assistance?

It has been argued that we are witnessing a retreat from democracy promotion in liberal interventionism. Focusing on the roll-out of biometric voter registration (BVR) across Africa, as supported by institutions such as the United Nations Development Programme, this article suggests that rather than a retreat we are seeing the emergence of a new and seemingly lighter approach to liberal democracy promotion. Through an analysis of the use of BVR in Kenyan elections, the article illustrates some key implications of this development. At the local level, the framing of BVR as a ‘solution’ omits important challenges to democratic elections in Kenya. At the global level, the roll-out of BVR reinforces unequal global power structures, for example by constituting an increasing number of African states as laboratories for the trialling of a technology which, due to fears of hacking, has now been rolled back in the US. To make this argument, the article combines insights from recent debates about the state of liberal interventionism, with insights from Michel Foucault and Sheila Jasanoff about the politics of technology.

Liberal internationalism meets third worldism: the politics of international election observation in the DRC’s post-war elections

In this article, we draw on the contradictions in, and the geopolitics of, international election observation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s 2006 and 2011 elections to identify and analyse the emergence of a neo-third world behaviour among African states intended to counter the excesses of Western liberal democracy promotion on the continent. We argue that the decision by African states to quickly endorse the 2011 elections and close ranks around Joseph Kabila’s government, amidst mounting international criticisms of the electoral process, should be understood in the context of a new form of third worldism that is emerging in the global South in response to the unrestrained exercise of US power.

“Comprehensive approximation” with the EU: biopolitical governmentality and its spill-over effects in Georgia

ABSTRACTThis article examines Georgia’s experience of civil society engagement with reforms after 2008, which attests to the country’s Euro-integrationist aspirations. In particular, the research addresses practices of the promotion of liberal democracy as forms of biopolitical governmentality pursued by Western state and non-state actors towards and in Georgia, raising the question of what the mechanisms of adoption and “domestication” of this knowledge by recipients with significantly different cultural, social and political systems are and how these could be applied by post-Soviet countries to construct their own sovereign projects. Based on in-depth interviews with representatives of the US, EU and German foundations and institutions, such as OSI, USAID, GIZ, the Millennium Challenge Corporations, as well as with Georgian think tank experts, politicians and practitioners, conducted in 2015–2017 in Washington, DC and Tbilisi, the author of the article discusses the experts’ assessment of implementing Western techniques of governance to Georgia and then demonstrates how Georgia itself uses them as part of its own biopolitical programmes towards break-away Abkhazia.

Liberal Democracy Promotion in Iraq: A Model for the Middle East and North Africa?

This article asks whether there are lessons that can be drawn from the democratization of Iraq for the possible democratization of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the wake of the 2010–2011 Arab uprisings. The paper draws on the democratization program in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 to demonstrate that focusing on the promotion of a liberal democratic model in Iraq translated into a lack of operational flexibility, which let democracy assistance unable to cope with socio-economic demands, local realities and reactions to democratization. Taking into account a variation in the intensity of interventionism between Iraq and MENA, the article argues that there is sufficient similarities between both cases to point Western democracy promoters in the direction of models of democracy that offer a more comprehensive response to the current political transition in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya than the traditional focus on the promotion of liberal democracy does.

India’s Non-liberal Democracy and the Discourse of Democracy Promotion

Emphasis on democracy in Indian and international perspectives on India’s foreign policy has grown over the past decade. Claiming that India is a ‘successful’ example of a non-Western liberal democracy, these perspectives prescribe a role for India in international democratisation efforts. The keener among these suggests that India must participate in Western-style, or Western initiatives of, democracy promotion. This article offers a critique of these prescriptions. Recent theorisations of India’s democratic practices argue that India is a predominantly non-liberal democracy. Drawing upon these theorisations, this article outlines the non-liberal features inherent in the practices of Indian democracy. It also outlines the democratic processes that restrain India’s foreign policy from acquiring an other-regarding orientation. Contesting the characterisations of India as a liberal democracy, this article questions the basis on which the calls for India to participate in liberal democracy promotion projects are made.

Winning with warlords in Afghanistan

A fundamental contradiction has been built into America's intervention in Afghanistan since the first days of the war in 2001. On the one hand, US policymakers have viewed the promotion of liberal democracy, economic development, and strong centralized state institutions as essential to achieve victory over the long term. On the other hand, however, the US has relied on local warlords to win its battles against the Taliban from the first days of the intervention. The Obama administration's tortured policy review reflects the intractable dilemmas involved in trying to build a modern democratic state while relying on local warlords as crucial allies in the war against the Taliban.

The Limits of Liberal-Democracy Promotion

One of the few unambiguously positive outcomes of the George W. Bush years is a greater interest in the practice of democracy promotion. However, the expansion of scholarship in this area has not been matched by an equal expansion in its scope. There continues to be an overwhelming tendency to focus exclusively on empirical case studies and policy prescriptions, usually informed by a set of unstated liberal assumptions. Nothing is necessarily wrong with this per se. The problem stems from the lack of attention directed toward the larger theoretical and conceptual frameworks that inform and shape these practices. Responding to this state of affairs, this article examines the way certain theoretical tendencies and commitments have helped give rise to many problematic aspects of liberal democracy promotion. It is necessary to challenge the restrictive framework that currently dominates. It is argued that to do so entails rethinking, extending, and pluralizing the way democracy itself is conceived.

The Challenge of Warlordism to Post-Conflict State-Building: The Case of Laurent Nkunda in Eastern Congo

Using evidence from the case of Congo, focusing in particular on the eastern Kivu provinces, this article argues that the enduring presence of warlords, and the influence of their international supporters, remains inadequately addressed by current practices of post-conflict state-building. The dominant contemporary model of state-building currently focuses on the promotion of liberal democracy as a way of avoiding future conflict, highlighting in particular the key role of elections. Simultaneously, it emphasises the importance of security and developing a state monopoly on violence. However, in the pursuit of both these ends in Congo, warlord politics and interference from regional powers continue to pose significant challenges. Exploring key aspects of the rebel movement led by Laurent Nkunda in east Congo (2004–2009), this article will illustrate some of the challenges warlordism poses in Congo, focusing particularly on the shortcomings of a ‘single sovereign’ approach to state-building. In conclusion, the experience of the Kivus indicates that an approach recognising multiple sovereignties or emphasising significant decentralisation may be more appropriate. Without such a shift in emphasis the notion that Congo is, or will soon become, an empirically functional state is perhaps wishful thinking.

International Law and the Entitlement to Democracy After War

Since the end of the Cold War, the international community has engaged in two tasks that run contrary to traditional notions of state sovereignty. first is the reconstruction of domestic political institutions in states emerging from civil second is the promotion of liberal democracy as the preferred form of national governance. Whether one understands state sovereignty in territorial or functional terms, both tasks break new ground. At the heart of most Westphalian conceptions of state autonomy is the capacity for self-government. International law prior to the end of the Cold War was highly protective of how states selected their leaders and designed their constitutional systems. As a respected international law treatise stated in 1905, The Law of Nations prescribes no rules as regards the kind of head a State may have. Every State is, naturally, independent regarding this point, possessing the faculty of adopting any Constitution according to its discretion. (1) It is commonplace that state sovereignty has never been absolute, either in theory or practice; however, for the international community to involve itself in matters of internal governance--let alone to specify a model of liberal democracy as the normative ideal--intrudes upon functions that even the most permeable conceptions of sovereignty have regarded as wholly domestic. These assumptions have now changed. External actors, led primarily by the United Nations, have become negotiators of peace agreements to end civil wars; drafters of new constitutions, electoral laws, and judicial procedures; and supervisors of all aspects of postwar transitions. These postconflict reconstruction or peacebuilding missions (the terms are used interchangeably) have taken place on every continent. They have become so common that, at the end of the twentieth century, it was the rare civil conflict that ended without the UN being assigned an important role in the state's reconstruction. (2) A UN panel has defined peacebuilding as activities undertaken on the far side of conflict to reassemble the foundations of peace and provide the tools for building on those foundations something that is more than just the absence of war. (3) Between 1991 and 2002, seventeen UN peacebuilding missions were deployed. (4) During the same period, international law has increasingly identified liberal democracy as the preferred form of national governance. (5) Scholars have identified an emerging entitlement in international law--the view that representative government, chosen in fair and periodic elections, is a human right of all citizens. (6) state practice underpinning this emerging norm is widespread and diverse: resolutions of the Security Council urging free and fair elections; clarification of the treaty-based right to political participation by international human rights bodies; refusal of states and international organizations to recognize regimes taking power by extraconstitutional means; the conditioning of foreign aid on comportment with norms; and the conditioning of treaty relations on the maintenance of democratic institutions. These and other similar acts are the raw data from which norms of customary international law emerge. Postconflict reconstruction initiatives bring together these two normative strains of reconstructing state institutions after conflict and democracy promotion. When the UN has contributed to the political and legal structure of postconflict societies, it has invariably drawn on the body of emerging democratic norms. While this cross-pollination is not often explicit, the institutions and procedures it has recommended for postconflict states find direct parallels in the body of human rights norms concerning political participation. On issues ranging from universal suffrage to party pluralism to media access for opposition groups, international norms and the practice of democracy promotion missions are remarkably congruent. …

Liberal Social Reconstruction and the Resolution of Civil Wars in Central America

The international community, in its efforts to overcome the security dilemmas that inhibit conflict resolution, need not always offer forceful security guarantees to combatants in civil wars. We argue that noncoercive, liberal international intervention can end civil wars. As suggested by a constructivist perspective and the insights of the democratic peace, the promotion of liberal democracy can successfully resolve civil wars by transforming the identities and institutions of the combatants. We develop this argument by examining the resolution of civil wars in Central America during the 1990s. Of the Central American cases, Nicaragua, the country subject to the strongest security guarantees, has been the least stable of the three. El Salvador and Guatemala, in contrast, have experienced more successful conflict resolution despite the lack of any forceful security guarantees by the international community. The termination of these civil wars can be best explained by the adherence of local actors to liberal democratic norms and institutions in response to a variety of international pressures and opportunities.

Promoting Human Rights and Democracy in the Developing World: U.S. Rhetoric versus U.S. Arms Exports

Scholars disagree about the determinants of U.S. foreign policy instruments. According to realpolitik, security interests determine the outcome of U.S. decisions on arms transfers. Neo-liberals counter that respect for human rights and democratic governance are important in U.S. foreign policy. The objective of this study is to assess whether human rights and democracy are significant determinants in the decision to transfer arms abroad. Focusing on U.S. arms exports to developing countries for the years 1990 through 1994, 1 use modified Heckman model to take into account two-stage decision-making process. The findings indicate that in the initial decisionmaking stage, human rights and democracy are important determinants of the eligibility of countries to receive arms. In the second stage, democracy is significant, though human rights no longer affect the decision on the amount of arms to be transferred. any view the coming of the twenty-first century as a critical turning point in history wherein Western democracies have ( an opportunity to shape the political nature of our (Diamond 1992, 27). Along these lines, the United States endorsed the promotion of liberal democracy as cornerstone of its foreign policy. Thus, the Bush administration called for new world order characterized by freedom and justice, and the Clinton administration sought to enlarge the global democratic community. To what extent are the instruments of U.S. foreign policy used in manner consistent with proliberalization rhetoric? I address this question by exaimining the degree to which U.S. practices on arms exports mirror its professed concern with human rights and democracy. If this rhetoric is sincere, the conditions of human rights and democracy in recipient countries should be related to patterns of U.S. arms transfers abroad. This intent is embodied in legislation such as the proposed Code of Conduct that would constrain the export of U.S. arms to those countries that, among other things, respect human rights and have democratic form of government. Such efforts are based on the belief that the U.S. responsibility to protect human rights, promote democracy, and take the lead in reducing regional arms races throughout the world. They are also linked to the premise that since democracies do not go to war with each other (ONeal et al. 1996; Maoz and Russett 1993), exporting arms only to democracies reduces the likelihood of the boomerang effect.' Furthermore, as U.S. funds are used to subsidize many arms sales through foreign aid and off-set agreements (Neuman 1985), policymakers find it harder publicly to justify such arrangements when the recipient abuses human rights or is nondemocratic. Critics contend that these goals are disregarded in practice. In the postCold War period, the United States has subverted human rights to commercial concerns (Wheat 1995, 16; see also Hartung 1995). In period