Housekeeping. I. Recap debate. Structure. Key debates. Why both sides in the debate? 2/11/2008. Check list add details Survey feedback, comments

Transcription

1 Housekeeping STM103 Class 4 Policy advocacy Check list add details Survey feedback, comments Link under under classes stm103 Sagita Class notes page Post comments, ideas, suggestions for new resources, criticisms, blog notes Sagita_Muco@ksg08.harvard.edu 1 2 Structure I. Recap debate I. Context of the debate II. Does democratic governance bring a peace dividend? Contextual trends in global conflict and terrorism Center from Systemic Peace/Rand Why the initial transition to democracy generates Economic growth Yes Rodrik et al No Przeworski et al III. belligerent nationalism and war Mansfield and Snyder Why power-sharing democracies reduce conflict in divided societies Impact of democratic governance Social welfare Yes Siegle et al No Ross Norris Driving Democracy Ch 5 IV. Conclusions What are the best reasons for advocating democratic governance? 3 Peace (this class) Yes Norris No Mansfield & Snyder Why both sides in the debate? Effective advocacy means an awareness of the arguments of critics; not blind propaganda Genuine uncertainty exists in the research literature; no consensus Different 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) Need to judge for yourself why you would or would not favor democratic governance Key debates Does democratic governance bring a peace dividend? Does the spread of freedom reduce the risks of international terrorism? Is there a sequential order in the process of state-building and holding transitional elections? Does the type of democratic institutions matter? 5 6 1

2 President Bush, 2 nd inaugural address Jan 2006 The United States Is Committed To The Advance Of 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 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 everywhere. Nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists; they will join in defeating them. U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Supporting 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 and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health. Background Trends in Peace & Conflict Ted Robert Gurr, Monty Marshall and Deepa Khosla Center for Systemic Peace Annual trends in episodes of violent conflict Inter-state (between independent nation-states) Societal (civil wars, armed repression, etc) Rates 160 countries on their capacity for peace-building: Avoid recent armed conflicts Manage movements for self determination Maintain stable democratic institutions Substantial material resources Free of serious threats from external environment MAJOR EPISODES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, Begin End Type Mag States Directly Brief Description Deaths Involved CV 1 Guinea Parrot's Beak clashes CV 1 Liberia Civil violence (attacks by LURD guerillas) CW 2 Ivory Coast Civil war (north, south, and west divisions) * EV 1 Indonesia Communal (Dayaks vs Madurese immigrants) * EW 1 Rwanda Ethnic war (attacks by Hutu guerillas) * IV 2 United States Al Qaeda attacks on New York/Washington CV 1 Central African Civil violence (attacks by Bozize loyalists; coup) 1000 Rep EV 3 Nigeria Ethnic violence (Christian-Muslim; Plateau, Kano regions) IW 3 Afghanistan Ouster of Taliban; Hunt for al Qaeda CV 1 India Maoist insurgency (People's War Group; Maoist Communist Centre; People's 1500 Liberation Guerrilla Army) EV 1 Pakistan Sectarian violence: Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Ahmadis CV 1 Congo-Brazzaville Civil violence (Ninja militants in Pool region) * CV 1 Thailand Anti-Drug Traffiking Campaign IW 6 Iraq Ouster of Hussein-Ba'athist regime and subsequent sectarian strife: Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, and foreign al Qaeda IW 2 US/UK Invasion of Iraq and military occupation CV 1 Saudi Arabia Islamic Militants EV 5 Sudan Communal-separatist violence in Darfur CV 1 Yemen Followers of al-huthi in Sadaa CV 1 Haiti General unrest surrounding ouster of President Aristide and his Lavalas 2000 Family ruling party EV 1 Pakistan Pashtuns in Federally Administered Tribal Areas, mainly South Waziristan, 1500 and North-West Frontier Province EV 1 Thailand Malay-Muslims in southern border region (Narathiwat, Pattani, Songkhla, and 2500 Yala provinces) EV 1 Turkey Kurds in the southeast EV 1 Pakistan Rebellion in Baluchistan CW 1 Chad United Front for Democratic Change (FUC) rebels EW 2 Central African APRD (northwest) and UFDR (northeast) rebels 1500 Republic EV 2 Chad Communal fighting between Toroboro ("black" sedentary farmer) and 5000 Janjawid ("arab" pastoralist) militias 2006 * IV 2 Israel Israel vs Hezbollah 1500 Lebanon EV 1 Lebanon Palestinian/Islamist militants EW 1 Ethiopia Somalis and Oromo militants in Ogaden February EV 1 Kenya Communal violence following disputed presidential election February

3 Trends in violent conflict Total magnitude of violent conflict and of ethnic conflict rose then fell during the 1990s Number and magnitude of armed conflict within and among states have lessened since the early 1990s by nearly half. Conflicts over self-determination are being settled with increasing frequency. Yet African exceptionalism: Little international effort Democratic transitions failed Pervasive poverty Center for Systemic Peace/MAR Global Conflict Trends 14 Current situation (2007) In late 2007, 24 states were directly affected by ongoing conflict. Of these, 12 are protracted wars (10+ years). Afghanistan (30 years), Colombia (24), D.R.Congo (16), India (56), Iraq (28), Israel (43), Myanmar (60), Nigeria (11), Philippines (36), Somalia (20), Sri Lanka (25), Sudan (25), Turkey (24), and Uganda (37). On average, during the contemporary period, interstate wars lasted about 3 years; civil wars lasted just over 5 years; and ethnic wars lasted nearly 10 years. Trends in terrorism Terrorism is defined by the nature of the act, not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, e, or refrain from actions they desired ed to take. International Terrorism: "Incidents in which terrorists go abroad to strike their targets, select domestic targets associated with a foreign state, or create an international incident by attacking airline passengers, personnel or equipment." RAND-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base ( RAND-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base ( RAND-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base ( February

4 II: Evidence against RAND-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base ( HCTB=bombings that result in 15 or more deaths Mansfield-Snyder Edwards D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder Electing to Fight. MIT Press. Democratixzation and the danger of war, IS 1995 In the transitional phase of democratization, countries become more aggressive and war prone Incentives for elites to exploit power, populist nationalist rhetoric, especially in elections, leading them eventually to jettison democracy. Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina Mansfield-Snyder Evidence Democracy-autocracy Polity IV (Gurr) Correlates of War (COW) military conflict with at least 1000 battle fatalities , one, five and ten year periods Democratizing states two-thirds more likely to go to war than states with no regime change. Why? Widening political spectrum, inflexible interests,competitive mobilization, weakening state III: Evidence in favor Do institutions matter? Lijphart s theory of consociationalism: Power-sharing rules essential for divided societies Power-concentrating regimes may work in homogeneous societies Key features: Executive power-sharing, minority veto, PR, cultural autonomy Operationalize modern power-sharing democracies Electoral systems Type of executive Decentralized states Media systems 23 4

5 Consociational theory Potential criticisms Figure 5.1: The core sequential steps in consociational theory Proportional electoral systems with low Plural thresholds Facilitates the societies election of contain representatives and distinct parties drawn from ethnic Positive action minority communities mechanisms for communities minorities: boundary delimination, communal rolls, and reserved seats Community leaders have incentives to cooperate within legislatures l and coalition governments, building trust at elite level Generates support for democracy among community members Strengthens democratic consolidation and reduced ethnic conflict Constructivist theories Posner: Social identities shaped by political institutions, not fixed Incentive theory among elites Horowitz: Incentives for community cooperation or for rivalry? Trade-off values in failed states Snyder: Stable, strong and effective states needed in post-conflict societies more than power-sharing arrangements Direction of causality? Institutional endogeneity and path dependency? Eg Cheibub: Military regimes are more likely to select presidential executives Classify and compare: Electoral systems Types of executives Federalism and decentralization Media systems Figure 5.2: Classification of contemporary electoral systems, worldwide 2004 Nation States 191 Majoritarian Combined PR Majority Plurality Independent Dependent STV Party List No direct elections 9 AV 4 2nd Ballot 22 FPTP 36 Bloc Vote 9 SNTV 4 Closed 35 Open 31 Adversarial Democracy and Government Accountability Consensual democracy and Parliamentary Inclusiveness Notes: FPTP First Past the Post; 2 nd Ballot; Block Vote; AV Alternative Vote; SNTV Single Non-Transferable Vote; STV Single Transferable Vote. Systems are classified in May 1997 based on Appendix A in Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly. Eds. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. For more details see Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Table 5.2: Electoral systems and democracy, all societies worldwide Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Freedom House Polity IV b (pcse) p b (pcse) p INSTITUTIONAL RULES Majoritarian (.454) *** (.949) *** Proportional representation.904 (.619) N/s 3.85 (.561) *** Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) *** (.777) *** CONTROLS Log GDP/Capita (.832) *** (1.01) *** Ex-British colony (.962) *** (1.36) *** Middle East (1.16) *** (1.40) *** Regional diffusion.632 (.036) ***.883 (.049) *** Ethnic fractionalization (.878) *** (1.56) N/s Population size.001 (.001) N/s.000 (.001) *** Area size.001 (.001) ***.001 (.001) *** Constant N. observations N. of countries Adjusted R Note: Entries for Liberal Democracy, Constitutional Democracy and Participatory Democracy 100- point scales are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients (with their panel corrected standard errors) and the significance (p) of the coefficients for the pooled time-series cross-national analysis obtained using Stata s xtpcse command. The entries for Contested Democracy are logistic regression. For the measures of democracy, see Chapter 2. For the classification of the type of electoral system, see Figure 5.1. The default (comparison) is mixed electoral systems. For details of all the variables, see Technical Appendix A. Significant at * the 0.10 level, ** the 0.05 level, and *** the 0.01 level. Table 5.3: Electoral systems and democracy, plural societies only Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Freedom House Polity IV b (pcse) p b (pcse) p INSTITUTIONAL RULES Majoritarian (.625) *** (1.16) *** Proportional representation 4.81 (.966) *** (.915) *** Positive action strategies.424 (.676) N/s (1.52) *** CONTROLS Log GDP/Capita (.519) *** 7.26 (1.21) *** Ex-British colony 8.35 (.744) *** 8.20 (1.10) *** Middle East (.974) *** (3.13) *** Regional diffusion.739 (.027) *** 1.04 (.055) *** Ethnic fractionalization (3.18) *** (4.27) *** Population size (.000) *** (.001) *** Area size.001 (.001) ***.001 (.001) *** Constant N. observations N. of countries Adjusted R Note: Entries for Liberal Democracy, Constitutional Democracy and Participatory Democracy 100- point scales are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients (with their panel corrected standard errors) and the significance (p) of the coefficients for the pooled time-series cross-national analysis obtained using Stata s xtpcse command. The entries for Contested Democracy are logistic regression. For the measures of democracy, see Chapter 2. For the classification of the type of electoral system, see Figure 5.1. The default (comparison) is mixed electoral systems. For details of all the variables, see Technical Appendix A. Significant at * the 0.10 level, ** the 0.05 level, and *** the 0.01 level. 5

6 Figure 5.4: Contemporary levels of democracy by type of electoral system in heterogeneous and homogeneous society, 2000 Impact on conflict Low << Democracy >> High FH Polity FH Polity Homogeneous Heterogeneous Majoritarian Combined PR The type of institutions matter, especially in divided societies Electoral systems, types of executives, federalism/decentralization, independent media Power-sharing arrangements associated with consolidation of democracy and reduced conflict Power-concentrating regimes less stable democracies and greater conflict Note: For the classification of electoral systems, see Figure 5.3.The types of heterogeneous or homogeneous society are classified by the dichotomized Alesina index of ethnic fractionalization. 32 Conclusions What are the best reasons for advocating democratic governance? Instrumental Consequences of democracy for Intrinsic Value for itself Next class