Search results

The objective of this article is to develop a novel distinction among four IR approaches and especially to highlight the approach which will be called here 'offensive liberalism'. This four fold division is based not only on a distinction between realism and liberalism, but also on an internal division inside each camp between offensive and defensive approaches. Indeed, besides the distinction between offensive and defensive realism, there is also an overlooked parallel distinction between offensive and defensive liberalism. As I will show, this distinction goes deeper and has lasted much longer than the recent debate on the neoconservative agenda during the Bush presidency. While sharing the same liberal objectives, offensive and defensive liberals diverge sharply in the means they are willing to deploy to advance these objectives, especially the use of force to democratise non-democratic societies. I evaluate the advantages and the shortcomings of each approach as an avenue to fulfilling a durable world or regional peace and security. Each approach has some appeal but also major disadvantages. I will examine what the different perspectives suggest on the road to accomplishing security and peace. I will also briefly contrast the liberal and realist approaches with some constructivist ideas on peace. Finally, in order to clarify the differences among the four approaches, I apply their logic to a concrete issue, which led to major debates recently: democracy promotion and regime change by the leading superpower — the US. Thus, I open the discussion in this article by presenting the variations of ideal-type strategies towards regime change and conclude the article by linking these strategies and relevant examples to the approaches.

"Democracy Promotion in Africa" published on by Oxford University Press.

AbstractDespite the fact that democracy promotion is a major part of liberal foreign policies, the discipline of International Relations has not paid much systematic attention to it. Conversely, the study of democracy promotion is dominated by comparative politics and pays hardly any attention to the international system. This mutual neglect signifies a core weakness in the theory and practice of democracy promotion: its failure to comprehend the development of liberal democracy as an international process. This article argues that a thorough engagement with John Locke explains the failures of democracy promotion policies and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the development of liberal democracy.

The international promotion of democracy is about power, but the scholarship on this issue offers little systematic attention to the role and relevance that power might have in this context. This article critically discusses the literature that does explicitly deal with power in democracy promotion and proposes a multidimensional perspective as a way to improve our understanding of the international politics of democracy promotion. First, the typology of power proposed by Barnett and Duvall is applied to systematically conceptualize the power dimension of democracy promotion. Second, the article revisits the two main attempts to theoretically grasp the role and relevance of power in democracy promotion that draw on the Realist concept of relative power and the neo-Gramscian theory of hegemony, respectively. In both cases, the article argues, a multidimensional concept of power is analytically useful, as it enables an understanding of the complex nature of democracy promotion that goes beyond interstate relations and includes the attempt to change the very constitution of the recipient or target country from within.

Abstract
The Reagan administration not only pursued democratization in hostile states but also pressured allied authoritarian regimes to reform and occasionally supported "soft" regime changes to defuse internal tensions in countries that were important for U.S. strategic interests. The convergence between mid-level officials, autonomous democracy promoters, and key policymakers was most fruitful when these groups believed that U.S. interests would be vulnerable without political intervention. Evaluations of the stability and legitimacy of the existing governments influenced judgments about whether to pursue regime reform, either by keeping the existing elites in power within new democratic structures or by seeking to empower opposition groups and facilitating the rise of new elites. A critique of this approach is an essential addition to our understanding of the Reagan administration's policies vis-à-vis allied states.

"Explore the numerous paradoxes at the heart of the theory and practice of democracy promotion. The Democracy Promotion Paradox raises difficult but critically important issues by probing the numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes that lie at the heart of the theory and practice of democracy promotion. For example, the United States frequently crafts policies to encourage democracy that rely on cooperation with undemocratic governments; democracy promoters view their work as minor yet also of critical importance to the United States and the countries where they work; and many who work in the field of democracy promotion have an incomplete understanding of democracy. Similarly, in the domestic political context, both left and right critiques of democracy promotion are internally inconsistent.Lincoln A. Mitchell provides an overview of the origins of U.S. democracy promotion, analyzes its development and evolution over the last decades, and discusses how it came to be an unquestioned assumption at the core of U.S. foreign policy. His discussion of the bureaucratic logic that underlies democracy promotion offers important insights into how it can be adapted to remain effective. Mitchell also examines the future of democracy promotion in the context of evolving U.S. domestic policy and politics and in a changed global environment in which the United States is no longer the hegemon"--

A review article on books by (1) John B. Judis, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests and the Betrayal of Public Trust (New York: Pantheon Books, 2000); (2) Michael Zweig, The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret (London, Ithaca, NY: Cornell U Press, 2000); & (3) Ruy Teixeira & Joel Rogers, America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters (New York: Basic Books, 2000). As America inaugurates its 43rd president, it enters a period of reflection. The danger is that all emphasis on voting procedure will silence a longstanding & ultimately more significant criticism of US democracy & its policy of democracy promotion. The separation of economics from politics & the promotion of so-called "market democracy" does a disservice to the wider democratic project & is potentially self-defeating. This article reviews three books to argue that the declining international reputation of the US can be traced to its own democratic shortcomings. It explores the possibility of a popular working-class movement to address these failings & examines the implication this may have on the liberal international order. Adapted from the source document.