Forced to be Free

Forced to be Free – Why Foreign-Imposed Regime change rarely leads to democratization

- Alexander B. Downes, Jonathan Monten -

Alexander and Jonathan started the article with a very clear statement: Foreign-impose regime change (FIRC) is rarely leads to democratization.

Obviously, the authors pointed out a great illustration for their argument is the US. First of all, Washington’s regime change operation was very costly: approximately, the US has spent $3 trillion for the integration of democracy to Iraq. Beforehand, the US’s policymakers promised to minimize to cost of this objective. There were around 54,000 casualties with 6600 dead on the US’ side in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2012. The result was no country has successfully turned to democracy.

This bad outcome has been argued to have the following problem: Foreign Impose Regime Change (FIRC) to democracy was greatly matters to the citizens of the targeted country. For example, the transformation process had to be involved in the removal of the opposition that triggered the civil war and terrorism with the cost of more than 120,000 civilian lives both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After that, the writers mentioned scholarly perspectives over the sustainable of imposed democracy through military intervention. Successful cases are West Germany and Japan, while failed cases are Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America and the Caribbean. The successful cases show that democracy can be create and consolidate through intervention, while the other cases show the opposite meaning. There are scholars believed that military intervention has had negative influence on aftermath democracy, while some says despite the military intervention has little liberalization effects in the imposed state, the process can assist democratization.

The authors noted three problems that hindered the study of military intervention effects on democratization. First, it is the problem in finding proper researched cases to work with. Second, the authors pointed out that most studied cases had failed to notice the systematic differences between the imposer and the imposed state. Third, the literature problems – which ideas are divided on why intervention can bring about democratic changed, but accidently put aside ‘the favorable conditions’ for democracy in the imposed state.

Therefore, the authors proposed a new analysis into this issue. There are three steps in their analysis: First: a new data set will be introduced; second, introduction of selective target-state by empirical strategy; and finally, to include not only external but also internal actor contributed the success or failure of the democratization.

After that, they gave the reader a brief of their research. Furthermore, following what they were introduced, the analysis was conducted – Start with empirical research, and end with conclusion that policymakers have faced a paradox.

The analysis started with ‘The Debate about Intervention and the Spread of Democracy’. First, they considered the optimists’ point of view over intervention and democracy, which believe about the usefulness of military force for spreading democracy, George W. Bush is a typical model. Empirical examples were given supporting the idea (as footnote)

-          Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994)

-          G. John Ikenberry, Takashi Inoguchi, and Michael Cox, eds., American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)

-          George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, D.C.: White House, 2002)

-          George W. Bush, “President Discusses the Future of Iraq,” speech given to the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., February 26, 2003, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html.

Empirical research from democratization scholars said that military intervention can lead to a good democracy by: the removal of abusive opposition; discredit of ruling elites that support new elite that favor democracy; the over-cost that the opposition in targeted-country have to face.

Next, the pessimists’ point of view is considered. The arguments were that regime-changing interventions would lead to nationalist backlash against the current government, which was established by the outsiders. Supporting this idea, the writers gave the following supporters (as footnote):

-          John Mearsheimer, “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism versus Neo-Conservatism,”openDemocracy.net, May 19, 2005, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp

-          Francis Fukuyama, State-Building: Order and Governance in the Twenty-first Century (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004)

-          Donald Rumsfeld, “Beyond Nation Building,” remarks delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, 11th Annual Salute to Freedom, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York City, New York, February 14, 2003.

-          Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, “Intervention and Democracy”

After that, conditionalists’ arguments was presented. First, their idea was to avoid ‘categorical judgments to identify factors related to the democratic outcomes base on cases of intervened countries. This idea was supported with (as footnote):

-          Dobbins et al., America’s Role in Nation-Building, p. xix.

-          Jason Brownlee, “Can America Nation-Build?” World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 2 (January 2007)

A second argument emphasized the pro-democracy intentions or actions of intervener that would influence the aftermath democracy. This argument was supported by (as footnote):

-          Meernik, “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy”

-          Peceny, Democracy at the Point of Bayonets

-          Hermann and Kegley, “The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy”

A third argument considered the conditions in the target state as a key variable, related to this argument are (as footnote):

-          Pei and Kasper, Lessons from the Past; Brownlee, “Can America Nation-Build?”; Eva Bellin, “The Iraqi Intervention and Democracy in Comparative Historical Perspective,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter 2004/05)

-          Daniel Byman, “Constructing a Democratic Iraq: Challenges and Opportunities,” International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003)

In the after section, the authors then gave critical views over each of the point of view mentioned above, and concluded: studies that related to imposed countries’ domestic conditions, in explaining democratization success by intervention, have been ‘dominated by qualitative studies focusing on single cases’.

The analysis continued with ‘A Theory of Foreign-Imposed Regime Change and Democratization’. The authors offered two-step over the conditions that FIRC foster democratization: ‘Conditions favorable to Democracy’ and ‘Intervener strategy’.

In the section ‘Conditions favorable to Democracy’, there are four general conditions: First, wealthier autocracies are more likely to transition to democracy. Second, it is easier to sustain a democracy in a homogeneity society then a diversity society (ethnic, linguistic, religious diversity). Third, states that had good precious experience with the representative government (particularly democracy) would lead to a more solid democracy after all. Finally, the act of intervention, if had been carried out carefully and considerably, will create advantages for the followed democracy. Otherwise, it is more likely to spark a civil war.  

Next, the ‘Intervener strategy’ section pointed out that: First, preconditions for democracy created by the intervener are very important; Second, the democratic outcomes may various based on the decision of the intervener in whether removing a state’s primary leader or overthrowing him, and whether keeping the main political institution or replacing it.

Summarize and were given at the end of the sections mentioned above. As well as five hypotheses:

-     H1: The effect of institutional FIRC on democratization increases as targets’ level of economic development increases.

-    H2: The effect of institutional FIRC on democratization increases as targets’ level of ethnic homogeneity increases.

-   H3: The effect of institutional FIRC on democratization is greater if targets have previous experience with democracy. By contrast, democratization is unlikely to occur when either of these two factors—preconditions for democracy or intervener actions to facilitate reform—is absent.

-   H4: Institutional FIRC has no effect on democratization in the absence of preconditions for democracy.

-      H5: Leadership FIRC has no effect on democratization.

With a continuation, the authors proposed their ‘research design’, in order to estimate the effect of FIRC on Democratization. This section involved with defining and measure Democratization and FIRC, including some further understanding. Defining of the FIRC was focused. And especially, there are two kinds of FIRC: ‘FIRC by democracies’ and ‘Leadership and Institutional FIRC’. Additionally, the ‘control variables’ correlated with democracy, and the measure of intervention’s effect were mentioned.

The next section showed the authors’ ‘Analysis and Results’. The analysis was carried out with the reverse order of the hypotheses mentioned. The work was conducted by a set of methodological analysis with data sets and graphs.

The article finally ended with a conclusion from the authors. First: Policymakers in democracies tend to be optimistic about the spread of democracy, even not supported by scholarly studies. Second, leader-ship FIRC had no effect on democratization. Third, Democratization was more likely to happen after the institutional FIRC in places, with good preconditions such as high level of wealth, homogeneity society, and high affinity experience of previous democracy. Finally, the authors noted several lessons for scholarly and policy debates over regime change and democratization.

EBP2

ID: 300325449