DPI-403 Class 4Policy advocacy15 September 2009 1www.pippanorris.comStructureStructureI. Context of the debate Does democratic governance bring a ‘peace dividend’? Theoretical argumentsII. No: Why the initial transition to democracy generates yygbelligerent nationalism and war Mansfield and Snyder IIIYes: Why power-sharing democracies reduce conflict in III.Yes: Why powersharing democracies reduce conflict in divided societies Center for Systemic Peace - trendsNorris Driving Democracy Ch 5Norris Driving Democracy Ch 5IV. Conclusions  What are the best reasons for advocating democratic governance?15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 2I Recap debateI. Recap debateImpact of democratic democratic governance1.Economic growth2. Social welfare3. Peace growthwelfare‘Yes’ Rodrik et al‘Yes’Siegle et al‘Yes’ Norris/CSP‘No’ ‘No’ Przeworski et al‘No’ RossMansfield & SnyderWh b th id i th d b t ?Why both sides in the debate?Effective advocacy means an awareness of the Effective advocacy means an awareness of the arguments of critics; not blind propagandaGenuine uncertainty exists in the research Genuine uncertainty exists in the research literature; no consensusDifferent indicators, data, concepts, methods, and dependent variablesDifferent indicators, data, concepts, methods, and dependent variables Eg slippery notions of ‘good governance’ (World Bank), democracy (International IDEA), liberal democracy (Freedom House), democratic governance (UNDP)go e a ce (U ) Need to judge for yourself why you would or would not favor democratic governanceou d o a o de o a go e a e15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 5Key debatesKey debates Several distinct claims: True or false? Strongest universal claim: No democracies have ever fought a war against each other ever fought a war against each other.  Probabilistic claim: Does democratic governance generallyreduce the risks of war between states?gy Conditional claim: Is the transitional process from autocracy to democracy one of increased risks of ?war? Conditional claim: Do power-sharing democracies reduce internal conflict?reduce internal conflict?15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 6Democratic peace argumentsDemocratic peace arguments1. Informational argumentsg Democratic institutions facilitate signals, allowing democracies to resolve disputes with lower hostilities (egIranian intentions?)2Normative constraints2.Normative constraints Democracies have norms of tolerance and negotiation, which help resolve crisis. Autocracies have norms of coercion.3. Preferences A state’s foreign policy is shaped by domestic institutions; democracies share similar foreign policy preferences4. Electoral constraints Public opinion limits elites15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 7President Bush,2dl dd J 20062ndinaugural address Jan 2006 The United States Is Committed To The Advance Of Fd Ad D A Th G Al i T Freedom And Democracy As The Great Alternatives To Repression And Radicalism. The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is the universal appeal of freedom. Freedom is the best way to unleash appeal of freedom. Freedom is the best way to unleash the creativity and economic potential of a nation, the only ordering of a society that leads to justice, and the only way to achieve human rights.  Expanding Freedom Is More Than A Moral Imperative - It Is The Only Realistic Way To Protect Our People. The 9/11 attacks were evidence of an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. Nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists; they will join in defeating them.U.S. State DepartmentpBureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor“Supporting democracy not onlypromotes such fundamentalSupporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights avoid humanitarian crises anduphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health.”Pbl f lig idProblems of resolving evidence Definitions and measures of democracy and yautocracy Continuous (Polity IV) Categories (Freedom House) Dichotomies (Cheibub and Gandhi) Definitions and measures of militarized conflict, internal (civil wars) and external ()(inter-state) PRIO/Uppsala conflict database COW Correlates of War CSP/MAR University of Maryland Underlying reasons behind correlations Case studies of process15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 10II: Evidence against15 September 2009 11www.pippanorris.comMansfieldSnyderMansfield-Snyder Edwards D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder 2007. Electing t Fiht MIT Pto Fight. MIT Press. Mansfield and Snyder ‘Democratization and the danger of war’, IS 1995 Well-institutionalised democracies virtually never fight wars against each other.In the transitionalphase of democratization, In the transitionalphase of democratization, countries become more aggressive and war prone Incentives for elites to exploit power, populist nationalist rhetoric, especially in elections, leading ,p y , gthem eventually to jettison democracy. Ruling elites haphazardly accountable to electorsYugoslavia/BosniaHerzegovina Russia/GeorgiaYugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russia/Georgia15 September 2009 www.pippanorris.com 12MansfieldSnyderMansfield-Snyder Evidence Democracy-autocracy Polity IV (Gurr) Open executive recruitment, executive constraints, competitive participationCorrelates of War (COW) –Correlates of War (COW)  Military conflict with at least 1000 battle fatalities 1811-1980, one, five and ten year periodsConclusions: Conclusions:  “Democratizing states two-thirds more likely to go to war than states with no regime change.”More war prone, not lessMore war prone, not less Why?