Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
democracy.livingreviews.org | 2012
This literature review deals with the research field of external democracy promotion. It
discusses central notions and gives a short overview of real-world developments in external
democratization. It then distinguishes four different modes of democracy assistance:
coercion, conditionality, socialization, persuasion. Along these modes, theoretical
classifications and empirical findings from the pertinent literature are presented.
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
b)
c)
d)
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Type of action:
democracy promoters
Coercive action
Use of legal or physical force
Mode of
democracy promotion
a) Coercion
instrumental rationality
Type of action:
democracy promotion recipients
Submissive or non-submissive action
Obedience, evasion, or apathy
Offering incentives
Giving assistance with threat of
withdrawal, imposing sanctions
Persuasion
Promotion of ideas as legitimate
through justification
b) Conditionality
rationality
Processing of incentives
Compliance or non-compliance, depending on
reward/punishment relationship
Social learning
(effective or non-effective) internalization of
ideas and/or identity change if norms and
values are accepted
instrumental
c) Persuasion
communicative rationality
Social interaction
d) Socialization
Exhibition of norms and values normative rationality
in social practices
Table 1: Modes and types of action in external democracy promotion*
* The principle of this table is taken from Brzel/Risse (2009: 11), but many notions and classifications here differ. See
section 3 for further elaboration.
Table 1 shows that these four social mechanisms of interaction need to be distinguished from potential actions of democracy
promoters on the one side and democracy recipients on the other. Whereas the aims of the former to externally support
democratization are not difficult to determine, the range of the latter is much more complex. Because of threats or of their
own free will, political elites may decide or decide not to allow democratic institutions to take root in the domestic regimes;
usually the promoter assumes that recipients will opt for one alternative or the other in light of their own chances for
political (or sometimes physical) survival (Hellman 1998). Also the populations of authoritarian or democratizing countries
may decide or decide not to incorporate external impulses into their politically relevant action. Here, promoters assume that
populations will generally be ready to strive for higher degrees of freedom, autonomy, and self-determination. Obstacles do
emerge when social or economic hardships become so evident that they outweigh the perceived advantages of a
democratized regime (Przeworski 1991).
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
c) Democratization by Persuasion
communicative action and the civil sphere
The early writings on constructivism in international relations
theory stipulated that norms were not a given entity, but subject
to context and change (Wendt 1992; Checkel 1998;
Finnemore/Sikkink
1998;
Ruggie
1998;
Christiansen/Jorgensen/Wiener 2001). The major line of attack
was directed towards realist and neo-realist approaches that
derived norms from stable and non-volatile (state) interests.
Constructivism forwarded an alternative meta-theory with a few
major messages: interests should be seen as subject to
contingent interpretation by actors (Wendt, Ruggie); norms
should not be too closely linked to interests (Checkel); and norm
dynamics should be rated as driving forces for international
political change (Finnemore/Sikkink). These approaches present
a promising research dimension in external democracy
promotion in all cases where the focus needs to be directed to
norms and values that make formally democratic institutions
work.
Constructivism scholars therefore leaned towards the issue of
democracy promotion rather early. Over time, two theoretical
directions crystallized (Risse 2004: 162-165): discourse and
communication theory on the one hand, and sociological
institutionalism on the other hand. While some authors in the
field of external democratization tend to subsume both of these
approaches under a constructivist mechanism of socialization
(Brzel/Risse 2003; Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier 2005a;
Magen/Morlino 2009a), it seems worthwhile to insist on the two
substantially different types of human action linked to these
schools. Discourse and communication theory mainly focuses
on norm change in its ideational dimension, whereas
sociological institutionalism predominantly refers to norm
change related to (formal as well as informal) institutional rules
and practices. In a later paper, Tanja Brzel and Thomas Risse
have therefore returned to Risses earlier division and
established persuasion a mode related to ideational change
as a proper mechanism of norm diffusion (Brzel/Risse 2009:
9).
Within that category, different paths of persuasion are
discernable. One mode is described by Jeffrey Checkel who, in a
widely cited paper, explored the norm convergence of
democratizing Turkey with the European Union (Checkel 2001).
He argued that political actors move in ideational frames that
relate to non-ideational contexts. In that sense, a changing
environment in international relations eliminates earlier
constraints and opens new opportunities to which political actors
adjust; the result is ideational adaptation and an emergence of
new frames. The sudden appreciation of human and political
rights by previously repressive communist leaders around
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Conclusion
The research field of external democratization distinguishes
between four modes of democracy promotion: by a) coercion, b)
conditionality, c) persuasion, and d) socialization. Across the
modes, our empirical knowledge is unevenly distributed. While
numerous papers address the conditional democracy assistance,
in particular by the EU, there is considerably less knowledge on
Cited references
roehrig_ks.pdf
Baun, Michael J.. 2000. A Wider Europe. The Process and Politics of
European Union Enlargement. Lanham u.a.: Rowman&Littlefield.
Brzel, Tanja A., and Pamuk, Yasemin, and Stahn, Andreas. 2010.
Making Good Governance Work in the Southern Caucasus. Little
External Push and No Domestic Pull. SFB Working Papers,
Sonderforschungsbereich 700. Berlin: Freie Universitt Berlin.
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Nomos.
Grimm, Sonja, and Merkel, Wolfgang. 2008. War and Democratization:
Legality, Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Democratization 15(3): 457-471.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, Jrgen. 1992. Faktizitt und Geltung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Heller, Regina. 2008. Normensozialisation in Russland. Chancen und
Grenzen europischer Menschenrechtspolitik gegenber der
Russlndischen Fderation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Hellman, Joel S.. 1998. Winners Take All. The Politics of Partial
Reform in Postcommunist Transitions. World Politics 50: 203-234.
Henderson, Sarah L.. 2003. Building Democracy in Contemporary
Russia: Western Support for Grassroots Organizations. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Howard, Marc Morje. 2003. The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, Philip N., and Hussain, Muzammi M.. 2011. The Role of the
Digital Media. Journal of Democracy 22(3): 35-48.
Hughes, James, and Sasse, Gwendolyn, and Gordon, Claire. 2004.
Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU's Enlargement to Central
and Eastern Europe. Houndsmills: Palgrave.
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
Todd, Emmanuel. 2011. Allah ny est pour rien ! Sur les revolutions
arabes et quelques autres. Paris: Le Publieur.
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
van Rooy, Alison (ed.). 1998. Civil Society and the Aid Industry. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Verdery, Katherine. 1998. Transnationalism, Nationalism, Citizenship,
and Property: Eastern Europe since 1989. American Ethnologist 25(2):
291-306.
Walzer, Michael. 1977. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with
Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
Watts, Larry L.. 2002. Reforming Civil-Military Relations in PostCommunist States: Civil Control vs. Democratic Control. Journal of
Political and Military Sociology 30(1): 51-70.
Weber, Katja, and Smith, Michael E., and Baun, Michael (eds.). 2007.
Governing Europe's Neighbourhood. Partners or periphery?
Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social
construction of power politics. International Organization. 46(2): 391425.
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich