The Unintended Consequences of Democracy Promotion: International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anna M. Meyerrose, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Co-Advisor Irfan Nooruddin, Co-Advisor Marcus Kurtz William Minozzi Sara Watson c Copyright by Anna M. Meyerrose 2019 Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations (IOs) have engaged in unprecedented levels of democracy promotion and are widely viewed as positive forces for democracy. However, this increased emphasis on democracy has more re- cently been accompanied by rampant illiberalism and a sharp rise in cases of demo- cratic backsliding in new democracies. What explains democratic backsliding in an age of unparalleled international support for democracy? Democratic backsliding oc- curs when elected officials weaken or erode democratic institutions and results in an illiberal or diminished form of democracy, rather than autocracy. This dissertation argues that IOs commonly associated with democracy promotion can support tran- sitions to democracy but unintentionally make democratic backsliding more likely in new democracies. Specifically, I identify three interrelated mechanisms linking IOs to democratic backsliding. These organizations neglect to support democratic insti- tutions other than executives and elections; they increase relative executive power; and they limit states’ domestic policy options via requirements for membership. Lim- ited policy options stunt the development of representative institutions and make it more difficult for leaders to govern. Unable to appeal to voters based on records of effective governance or policy alternatives, executives manipulate weak institutions to maintain power, thus increasing the likelihood of backsliding. ii Empirically, this dissertation makes several contributions. First, I create and val- idate a latent variable-based cross-national indicator, the Democratic Institutional Strength (DIS) index. The DIS index draws on a theoretically based conceptual- ization of democratic backsliding, an increasingly important concept for which there had been no previous metric. Second, I combine original and existing panel data to test my theory and find that membership in IOs associated with democracy pro- motion makes subsequent democratic backsliding more likely. Such IOs also lead to reduced checks on executive power, limited economic policy options, and stunted party development in new democracies. Case studies of democratic backsliding in the European Union (EU) illuminate these causal mechanisms. Focusing on the EU’s two most extreme cases to date, Hungary and Poland, I illustrate how EU requirements contribute to backsliding by decreasing states’ domestic policy space and increasing executive power. The theory and findings contribute to debates on how international factors impact domestic outcomes, especially processes of democratization, as well as to nascent theories of democratic backsliding. iii This is dedicated to my parents, Seth, and Minette, all of whom have been unfailing sources of love, support, and purrs. iv Acknowledgments This dissertation is a result of invaluable support I received throughout my six years at The Ohio State University. I am particularly indebted to my co-chairs, Alexander Thompson and Irfan Nooruddin, without whom this project would not exist. I cannot thank Alex enough for agreeing to advise what was initially a heavily comparative dissertation, his guidance as I identified the international relations com- ponent of my research, his conscientious advising and feedback on countless drafts of this project, and his willingness to spend two or more hours per meeting helping me through my latest crisis with a combination of intellectual guidance and exceedingly dry wit. I also want to thank Irfan in particular for sparking the initial idea for this project during my first year at Ohio State, for introducing me to countless amazing and kind political scientists around the country, for helping me navigate the publish- ing process, and for breaking up the drudgery of conferences with group gatherings. Thank you for the long-distance support of your “last” Ohio State student. I am equally thankful to my other committee members, in particular for their day-to-day advising and emotional support. I thank Sara Watson for our countless meetings, our research forays into the French Senate, and her constant consideration for my personal as well as professional well-being and her unwaveringly positive out- look. Most if not all of the analyses in this project would have been problematic v without William Minozzi, who, along with Jason Morgan, became a sort of quantita- tive methods sherpa for my cohort. Finally, I thank Marcus Kurtz for forcing me to think hard about the design and assumptions in this project as well as his ongoing support as my graduate path evolved over time. In addition to my committee, my other colleagues at Ohio State have been critical sources of support and intellectual inspiration. My cohort, over the course of our in- numerable workshops and other informal meetings, should be commended for reading countless drafts of my work, and helping me realize not only when what I said was absolute nonsense, but also helping me identify solutions. I am especially thankful for their willingness to accept me as the “only girl” in the group and for an inordinate amount of time spent gossiping in offices and at bars. I am also thankful for my female colleagues from other cohorts that became a constant source of support and friendship, especially Leyla Tosun, Ruthie Pertsis, and Linnea Turco. These fellow graduate students, along with Macarena Guerrero and Amy Knuppe, have become lifelong friends for whom I am immensely grateful. I would not have reached this point without the unconditional love and support from my family and long-distance friends. I especially want to thank my parents, who never seem to doubt that I can do anything I want, as well as my friends who have been there from the beginning, especially Kate, Elizabeth, Vanessa, Nuray, Allie, Julie, and Danielle. Finally, I thank my partner, Seth. Through all my doubts, all my missteps, and also through my successes, he has always believed in, supported, and, when necessary, tolerated me. vi Vita 2012 . .B.A. International Studies, Rhodes College 2013–2018 . Graduate Associate, The Ohio State University 2015 . .M.A. Political Science, The Ohio State University 2017–2018 . Virtual Student Federal Service E- Intern, United States Agency for International Development, Democracy, Human Rights, and Gov- ernance Center Publications Research Publications Meyerrose, A. M. (2018). It is all about value: How domestic party brands influence voting patterns in the European Parliament. Governance, 31(4), 625–642. Meyerrose, A. M., Flores, T. E., & Nooruddin, I. (2019). From Elections to Democ- racy in Hard Times. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. University of Oxford Press. Fields of Study Major Field: Political Science vii Table of Contents Page Abstract....................................... ii Dedication...................................... iv Acknowledgments..................................v Vita......................................... vii List of Tables.................................... xi List of Figures................................... xiv 1. Introduction: Democratic Backsliding in an Age of International Democ- racy Promotion................................1 1.1 Research Design............................9 1.2 Plan of the Dissertation........................ 13 2. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democratic Backsliding: The Democratic Institutional Strength Index......................... 16 2.1 Democracy and Democratic Backsliding............... 19 2.1.1 What Is Democracy?...................... 19 2.1.2 Theories of Autocratic Reversion............... 21 2.1.3 Defining Democratic Backsliding............... 24 2.2 The Democratic Institutional Strength Index............ 29 2.2.1 DIS Measurement Validation................. 36 2.3 Next Steps............................... 39 viii 3. A Theory of International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding.. 42 3.1 Existing Theories of Democratic Backsliding............. 45 3.2 The International Side of Democracy................. 47 3.3 International Organizations and Democracy............. 49 3.3.1 Why Do IOs Promote Democracy?.............. 50 3.3.2 Which IOs Promote Democracy?............... 53 3.4 Theoretical Framework: Linking International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding........................ 54 3.4.1 Indirect Mechanism: Neglecting Important Democratic In- stitutions............................ 55 3.4.2 Direct Mechanism 1: Increasing Executive Power...... 58 3.4.3 Direct Mechanism 2: Limiting the Domestic Policy Space. 60 3.5 Scope Conditions............................ 65 3.6 Alternative Explanations........................ 69 3.7 The Counterfactual and Research Design............... 74 4. Linking International Organizations to Democratic Backsliding: A Cross- National Analysis............................... 78 4.1 Research Design............................ 79 4.1.1 Dependent Variable: The DIS Index............. 80 4.1.2 Independent Variables: IO Membership........... 80 4.1.3 Control Variables........................ 85