Suchergebnisse

"Focusing on regime trajectories across three countries in the former Soviet Union (Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine), Lucan Way argues that democratic political competition has often been grounded less in well-designed institutions or emerging civil society, and more in the failure of authoritarianism. In many cases, pluralism has persisted because autocrats have been too weak to steal elections, repress opposition, or keep allies in line. Attention to the dynamics of this "pluralism by default" reveals an important but largely unrecognized contradiction in the transition process in many countries - namely, that the same factors that facilitate democratic and semi-democratic political competition may also thwart the development of stable, well-functioning democratic institutions. Weak states and parties - factors typically seen as sources of democratic failure - can also undermine efforts to crack down on political opposition and concentrate political control". Way demonstrates that the features that have made Ukraine the most democratic country in the former Soviet Union also contributed to the country's extreme dysfunction and descent into war in 2014"--

Abstract: As the international balance of power has shifted away from established democracies, autocrats have begun to assert themselves on the world stage. Once the passive targets of democracy promotion, dictators now actively defend their power abroad, often seeking to undermine democracy in the process. Such deliberate efforts to promote authoritarian rule present a potentially serious threat to democracy in the world today. Yet a closer examination of the actual impact of "autocracy promotion" suggests that it so far presents a less serious challenge than is often assumed. The influence of autocracy promotion is limited, above all, by the fact that authoritarian powers tend to be concerned less with promoting authoritarianism as such than with furthering their own countries' more narrow economic and geopolitical interests. As a result, authoritarian interventions often have contradictory effects and may in some cases even foster greater pluralism .

AbstractIn recent years, observers have raised concerns about threats to democracy posed by external support for authoritarianism coming from regional powers such as Russia, China and Venezuela. This article assesses the efficacy of autocracy promotion through a close examination of Russian efforts to shape regime outcomes in the former Soviet Union. It finds that while Russian actions have periodically promoted instability and secessionist conflict, there is little evidence that such intervention has made post‐Soviet countries less democratic than they would have been otherwise. First, the Russian government has been inconsistent in its support for autocracy – supporting opposition and greater pluralism in countries where anti‐Russian governments are in power, and incumbent autocrats in cases where pro‐Russian politicians dominate. At the same time, the Russian government's narrow concentration on its own economic and geopolitical interests has significantly limited the country's influence, fostering a strong counter‐reaction in countries with strong anti‐Russian national identities. Finally, Russia's impact on democracy in the region has been restricted by the fact that post‐Soviet countries already have weak democratic prerequisites. This analysis suggests that, despite increasingly aggressive foreign policies by autocratic regional powers, autocracy promotion does not present a particularly serious threat to democracy in the world today.