Foreign Military Intervention and Democratization: a Comparative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Foreign Military Intervention and Democratization: A Comparative Analysis of Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Edmond Cata M.A. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska, 2002 B.A. University of Tirana, Albania, 1997 2012 Committee Chair: Dr. Dinshaw J. Mistry, Ph.D. Abstract This dissertation examines the relationship between foreign military intervention and democratization. It focuses on the conditions that contribute to the democratization of the occupied countries and looks at the cases of Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea. These countries are similar in that they all experienced military foreign intervention, have been non- democratic regimes prior to military intervention and became democracies after the intervention. The analysis aims to shed light on what conditions were conducive or not to the democratization of Germany, Japan, and Italy and South Korea. Using the inductive research method and secondary data analysis this work finds that while military intervention in Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea was an important factor in deposing non-democratic regimes, it was not the only important and conducive condition to democratization. While the goals, policies and commitment of the occupying power were important to democratization, the changes in political culture of the occupied elites and population and the character of security environment were also two other important conditions. The comparative analysis shows that when the goals, policies and commitment of the occupying force were oriented toward democratization, when the occupied elites and population moved toward a political culture displaying democratic patterns and behavior, and when the security environment was not characterized by wars or where the security threat was high but addressed by the external power, these conditions were both conducive for and contributed to democratization. The analysis finds these conditions in the cases of Germany, Japan and Italy but not in South Korea. The absence of such conditions in the case of South Korea may explain why South Korea did not democratize under the US military occupation and when it occurred, it took more than four decades. ii Copyright @ 2012 Edmond Cata iii Acknowledgements Writing of this dissertation would not have possible without the support of a number of people to whom I feel deeply indebt and thankful. The seeds of this dissertation were sown in one of the classes that I took with Professor Richard J. Harknett. The paper I wrote for his class helped me lay the foundations of my research. The discussion on political culture originates in one of the classes I took with Professor Laura D. Jenkins. The discussions in her course helped me clarify a number of issues linked to it. I owe the progress and completion of dissertation work to Professor Dinshaw J. Mistry. During the 2 years of work, Professor Mistry helped me with his guidance, patience, and readiness to respond to any question I had regardless of our communication in distance. I thank Professor Mistry for helping me go through various issues and refinements that made my dissertation work better. I‘m also grateful to Barbara A. Bardes and Joel D. Wolfe. The start of my dissertation would not have been possible without their support. I thank them for standing by me and giving me strength in the most difficult moments of my life. I will always be grateful and indebt to Sara and Velesin Peculi, Vjollca and Agim Medja, Nexhmije Cata, Mimoza and Agim Halilaj, Fatmir and Lavdije Berberi, Sokrat and Persefoni Hoda, Kaliopi and Vladimir Pulaj, and Ervin Medja. They showed up and supported me in the most difficult moments of my life, helped me cope with difficult times and gave me courage when I was about to loose it, believed in me and invested time and money to enable me to finish my doctoral studies. Without them I would not have completed my doctoral studies A special person I owe the completion of this dissertation is my mother Sakije. During all those long days and nights of work she was always there for me, doing everything that allowed me to focus on my work. My concerns became hers! My joy became her joy! This dissertation is hers as much as it is mine! My thanks also extend to Kathleen Imholz and Lauren Ashley Matus for their help in refining my style of expression in English. The last person I want to thank is Prunela for the support and courage she had given to me since 2010 on my way toward finishing both my dissertation work and doctoral studies. iv Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………............... iv List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………….. xii List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………. xiv Chapter One-Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 Why Study this Topic ……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.2 Literature Review and the Study of Democratization ……………………………… 3 1.3 Three Groups in the Debate …………………………………………………………. 6 1.3.1 Skeptics ………………………………………………………………….. 6 1.3.2 Optimists ……………………………………………………………….. 9 1.3.3 Middle Ground Scholars ……………………………………………… 10 1.4 Cases and Method ………………………………………………………………….. 14 1.5 The Organization of the Study and Some Findings ……………………………….. 15 Chapter Two-The Theory of Democratization ………………………………………………... 20 2.1 Intervention and Democratization ………………………………………………… 20 2.1.1 Intervention Goals ………………………………………………………. 20 2.1.2 Occupation Policies ……………………………………………………… 23 2.1.3 Intervener‘s Commitment ………………………………………………. 27 2.2 The Security Environment and Democratization ………………………………… 32 2.2.1 Internal Security ………………………………………………………… 33 2.2.2 External Security ………………………………………………………… 36 v 2.3 Political Culture and Democratization …………………………………………….. 41 2.3.1 Values and Beliefs ……………………………………………………….. 41 2.3.2 Behavior and Attitudes …………………………………………………... 42 2.3.3 Political Participation …………………………………………………… 43 2.3.4 Civil Society ……………………………………………………………... 44 2.3.5 Institutional Culture and Patterns ……………………………………….. 45 2.3.6 Social Change ……………………………………………………………. 46 2.3.7 Direction of Change ……………………………………………………… 47 2.4 Dependent Variable Democratization ……………………………………………… 48 2.4.1 Pace of Democratization ……………………………………………….... 49 2.4.2 Character of New Regime ……………………………………………….. 51 2.5 Independent Variable Foreign Intervention ……………………………………….. 59 2.5.1 Intervention Goals ……..…………………………………………………. 60 2.5.2 Occupation Policies ……………………………………………………… 61 2.5.3 Intervener‘s Commitment ………………………………….................... 62 2.6 Independent Variable Political Culture ……………………………………………. 65 2.6.1 Values and Beliefs ………………………………………....................... 66 2.6.2 Behavior and Attitudes …………………………………………………... 68 2.6.3 Political Participation ……………………………………………………. 69 2.6.4 Civil Society ……………………………………………………………… 71 2.6.5 Institutional Culture and Patterns ………………………………………… 72 2.6.6 Attitude toward Social Change ………………………………………….. 73 2.7 Independent Variable Security Environment ……………………………………… 74 vi 2.7.1 Internal Security Environment …...………………………………………. 75 2.7.1.1 Ethno-Religious Structure ………………………........................ 75 2.7.1.2 Legitimacy of Authority ………………………........................ 76 2.7.1.3 Power Structure and Exercise …………………....................... 76 2.7.1.4 Rights and Liberties …………………………………………… 77 2.7.2 External Security Environment ………………………………………….. 77 2.7.2.1 National Interests ………………………………………………. 78 2.7.2.2 Foreign Policy ………………………………………………….. 78 2.7.2.3 View on Sources of Security and Stability ……....................... 79 2.7.2.4 Management of Neighborly Relations …………………………. 80 2.8 Interaction among Independent Variables …..…………………………………….. 81 2.8.1 Interaction between Military Occupation and Security Environment …… 81 2.8.2 Interaction between Military Occupation and Political Culture ………… 85 2.9 Looking Ahead ……………………………………………………………………. 88 Chapter Three-Germany …………………………………………………………………….... 90 3.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 90 3.1 The Allied Occupation of Post-1945 Germany …………………………………… 91 3.1.1 Occupation Goals ……………………………………………………….. 93 3.1.2 Occupation Policies …………………………………………………….. 96 3.1.3 Occupation Commitment ……………………………………………..... 111 3.2 Political Culture Dynamics in Post-1945 Germany ……………………………... 117 3.2.1 Values and Beliefs …………………………………………………….. 117 3.2.2 Attitudes and Behavior ………………………………………………... 123 vii 3.2.3 Institutional Culture and Patterns ……………………………………….. 129 3.2.4 Political Participation …………………………………………………… 132 3.2.5 Civil Society …………………………………………………………….. 137 3.2.6 Attitude toward Change ………………………………………………… 140 3.3 Security Environment and Post-1945 Germany ………………………………….. 141 3.3.1 Internal Security Environment ………………………………………….. 141 3.3.2 External Security Environment ……………………………………….... 142 3.3.2.1 Conceptualization of National Interests …………………….... 143 3.3.2.2 The Character of Foreign Policy ……………………………… 146 3.3.2.3 View of Sources of Security and Stability ………………….... 151 3.3.2.4 Management of Neighbor Relations ………………………….. 154 3.4 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….. 158 Chapter Four-Japan …………………………………………………………………………… 160 4.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 160 4.1 The Allied Occupation of Post-1945 Japan ……………………………………..... 162 4.1.1 Occupation Goals ……………………………………………………….