Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Democracy Promotion (democracy + promotion)
Selected AbstractsDemocracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy PromotionINTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, Issue 3 2010Milja Kurki Democracy is a deeply contested concept: historically, complex debates have revolved around the meaning of democracy and the plausibility of different ,models of democracy.' However, democracy's conceptual contestability has received diminished attention in the post-Cold War democracy promotion debate as the attention of democracy promotion actors and scholars has turned to fine-tuning of policies through which a liberal democratic model can be successfully encouraged. It is argued here that the focus on the extension of the reach of the liberal democratic mode of governance has resulted in a conceptually impoverished appreciation of the multiple meanings that the idea of democracy can take. It is argued that the ,essential contestability' of the idea of democracy is not adequately recognized and tackled, which in turn has important effects for the ability of democracy promotion scholars, as well as practitioners, to take into account the consequences that considering alternative (non- or extra-liberal) models of democracy might have for democracy promotion. To move the debate forward, I explore here, primarily in conceptual and theoretical terms, what serious engagement with the essential contestability of democracy might mean for democracy promotion. I argue that it entails a two-fold move: ,pluralization' and ,contextualization' of the conceptions of democracy. The latter part of the article examines in detail the reasons that might exist for considering such a move in framing the study and the practice of democracy promotion, as well as the potential dangers that might be involved. [source] Can America Finance Freedom?FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, Issue 4 2009Assessing U.S. Democracy Promotion via Economic Statecraft Recent discourse on U.S. efforts to promote democracy has focused on military activities; especially the strategic and normative perils of democracy promotion at the point of bayonets. This paper explores the United States' use of economic statecraft to foster democratization, with particular attention to democracy incentive and assistance strategies. Incentive approaches attempt to promote democracy from the top-down, by leveraging aid and trade privileges to persuade authoritarian leaders to implement political reform. Assistance approaches aim to induce democratization from the inside, through funding and technical assistance to state institutions, and from the bottom-up, by providing support to civil society and elections. This study finds that while top-down incentive approaches can stimulate democratic change, this strategy tends to work only when aid and trade benefits are conditional; that is, when benefits are withheld until recipient states meet rigorous democratic benchmarks. Washington has historically eschewed democratic conditionality, however, and thus can claim very few aid-induced or trade-induced democratization events. Scant evidence exists to demonstrate that inside approaches,that is, institutional aid,possesses significant capacity to induce democracy. It is the bottom-up approach,empowering the masses to compel democratic change,that has registered the greatest number of democracy promotion successes. [source] Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy PromotionINTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, Issue 3 2010Milja Kurki Democracy is a deeply contested concept: historically, complex debates have revolved around the meaning of democracy and the plausibility of different ,models of democracy.' However, democracy's conceptual contestability has received diminished attention in the post-Cold War democracy promotion debate as the attention of democracy promotion actors and scholars has turned to fine-tuning of policies through which a liberal democratic model can be successfully encouraged. It is argued here that the focus on the extension of the reach of the liberal democratic mode of governance has resulted in a conceptually impoverished appreciation of the multiple meanings that the idea of democracy can take. It is argued that the ,essential contestability' of the idea of democracy is not adequately recognized and tackled, which in turn has important effects for the ability of democracy promotion scholars, as well as practitioners, to take into account the consequences that considering alternative (non- or extra-liberal) models of democracy might have for democracy promotion. To move the debate forward, I explore here, primarily in conceptual and theoretical terms, what serious engagement with the essential contestability of democracy might mean for democracy promotion. I argue that it entails a two-fold move: ,pluralization' and ,contextualization' of the conceptions of democracy. The latter part of the article examines in detail the reasons that might exist for considering such a move in framing the study and the practice of democracy promotion, as well as the potential dangers that might be involved. [source] Neighbourhood Europeanization through ENP: The Case of UkraineJCMS: JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES, Issue 5 2010ANDREA GAWRICH This article contributes to the integration of Neighbourhood Europeanization in the literature on Europeanization. Based on insights from Membership and Enlargement Europeanization, we reveal important inconsistencies of Neighbourhood Europeanization through ENP as well as a lack of robust empirical support for its effectiveness. We define core dimensions and determinants of Neighbourhood Europeanization and implement this analytical framework for the case of Ukraine. The analysis clearly demonstrates substantial asymmetries in ENP policy across the three dimensions we chose , democracy promotion, economic co-operation and JHA, which clearly reflect the inconsistency of the ENP concept: top-down formulation of EU interests combined with weak conditionality. ENP inconsistencies could however be overcome through widening linkages and improving financial support to mobilize and strengthen positive local support of EU demands and rewards. [source] State Sovereignty After 9/11: Disorganised HypocrisyPOLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2007Amitav Acharya This article examines the implications of the 9/11 attacks and the US-led ,global war on terror' for debates about state sovereignty. To support its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration put forth a ,selective sovereignty' thesis that would legitimise intervention in states that are accused of supporting terrorists. This new rationale for intervention was paradoxically justified as a means of ensuring a ,well-ordered world of sovereign states', which had been imperilled by transnational terrorist networks. This article argues that the ,selective sovereignty' thesis exaggerates the challenge posed by terrorist organisations to Westphalian sovereignty, and understates the US's own unprincipled violation of its core norm of non-intervention. A related argument of this article is that on the face of it, the ,selective sovereignty' approach fits the notion of ,organised hypocrisy' put forward by Stephen Krasner, which refers to ,the presence of long-standing norms [in this case non-intervention] that are frequently violated' for the sake of some ,higher principles', violations that are generally tolerated by the international community. But the higher principles evoked by the US to justify its war on Iraq, such as the human rights of the Iraqis, and democracy promotion in the Middle East, are now clearly seen to have been a façade to mask the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the invasion. In this sense, the war on terror has revived national security and naked self-interest as the principal rationale for intervention, notwithstanding the self-serving efforts by some Bush administration officials to ,graft' the ,selective sovereignty' thesis on to the evolving humanitarian intervention principle. This policy framework is hypocrisy for sure, but as the international response to the war on Iraq (including the lack of UN authorisation for the war and the transatlantic discord it generated) demonstrates, it should be viewed more as a case of ,disorganised hypocrisy'. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||