DOCSLIB.ORG

AUTOCRACY, DESPOTISM and DEMOCRACY an Historical Approach to the Relationship Between Religion and Politics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AUTOCRACY, DESPOTISM and DEMOCRACY an Historical Approach to the Relationship Between Religion and Politics AUTOCRACY, DESPOTISM AND DEMOCRACY An Historical Approach to the Relationship between Religion and Politics PART 1: THE AGE OF FAITH (to 1453) Vladimir Moss © Copyright: Vladimir Moss, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................4 I. PRE-CHRISTIAN STATEHOOD .......................................................................8 THE TWO KINGDOMS.........................................................................................8 THE FAMILY AND THE STATE .......................................................................11 PAGAN DESPOTISM...........................................................................................14 FROM THEOCRACY TO AUTOCRACY..........................................................18 KING DAVID ........................................................................................................24 THE DECLINE OF THE ISRAELITE AUTOCRACY ......................................29 ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY ...............................................................................34 PLATO ON THE STATE......................................................................................41 ARISTOTLE ON THE STATE .............................................................................47 ALEXANDER, THE STOICS AND THE DEMISE OF DEMOCRACY .........51 FROM ZERUBBABEL TO THE MACCABEES.................................................55 HEROD THE GREAT...........................................................................................60 THE KING OF THE JEWS ...................................................................................63 THE END OF THE STATE ..................................................................................66 THE HIERARCHICAL PRINCIPLE...................................................................68 ROME: PERSECUTOR OR PROTECTOR? .......................................................73 WHY ROME?.........................................................................................................79 ROME AND CHINA............................................................................................86 THE CULT OF THE EMPEROR .........................................................................95 II. THE ROMAN AUTOCRACY AND ITS CHILDREN...............................100 ST. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT ...................................................................100 AUTOCRACY AND TYRANNY......................................................................110 AUTOCRACY AND HERESY ..........................................................................118 THE QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ...............................................123 THE RISE OF THE POPES (1) FROM LEO I TO VIGILIUS .........................134 THE SYMPHONY OF POWERS.......................................................................139 TO OBEY OR NOT TO OBEY? .........................................................................145 ROMANITY IN PERIL: CELTIC BRITAIN.....................................................153 ROMANITY RESTORED: ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND ............................159 THE SYMPHONY OF NATIONS.....................................................................162 THE RISE OF THE POPES: (2) FROM GREGORY I TO GREGORY III......168 THE SACRAMENT OF ROYAL ANOINTING..............................................171 THE DISSONANCE OF NATIONS .................................................................177 THE MONOTHELITE AND ICONOCLAST CHALLENGES .....................182 THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE ........................................................................186 ST. PHOTIUS THE GREAT ...............................................................................197 CHURCH CANONS VS. IMPERIAL LAWS ..................................................205 THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY ................................................................208 THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE..................................................................213 ST. VLADIMIR THE GREAT ............................................................................217 2 THE YEAR 1000: APEX OF MONARCHISM.................................................221 THE RIGHTS OF THE ORTHODOX AUTOCRAT .......................................226 III. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN AUTOCRACY............................................230 KIEVAN RUS’......................................................................................................230 GEORGIA UNDER THE BAGRATIDS ...........................................................242 THE SLIDE TOWARDS ABSOLUTISM ..........................................................247 THE NICAEAN EMPIRE AND ROYAL ANOINTING................................257 THE SERBIAN SYMPHONY OF POWERS ....................................................267 THE UNIA ...........................................................................................................270 ST. ALEXANDER NEVSKY ..............................................................................279 TSAR DUSHAN AND THE SERBIAN EMPIRE............................................283 TSAR LAZAR AND KOSOVO POLJE.............................................................287 THE RISE OF MUSCOVY..................................................................................293 ТHE CRISIS OF BYZANTINE STATEHOOD ................................................299 ТHE SULTAN’S TURBAN AND THE POPE’S TIARA ................................302 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ......................................................................305 THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE...............................................................310 IV. THE PAPIST DESPOTISM ...........................................................................316 THE RISE OF THE HERETICAL PAPACY ....................................................316 THE GROWTH OF FEUDALISM.....................................................................321 THE ENGLISH MONARCHY ..........................................................................327 THE GERMAN MONARCHY..........................................................................333 THE GERMANS AND THE FILIOQUE..........................................................339 THE REFORM MOVEMENT ............................................................................343 THE SCHISM OF 1054 .......................................................................................346 THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND ...............................................352 THE GREGORIAN REVOLUTION..................................................................360 THE CRUSADES.................................................................................................372 ROMAN LAW AND THE SICILIAN MONARCHY ....................................377 THE APOTHEOSIS OF PAPISM: INNOCENT III.........................................384 THE MEDIEVAL REVOLUTIONARIES .........................................................389 THE TALMUD AND THE CABALA ..............................................................395 NATURAL LAW.................................................................................................401 THE CRISIS OF MEDIEVAL AUTHORITY....................................................407 TWO PROTO-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTIONS............................................415 THE CONCILIAR MOVEMENT......................................................................420 CONCLUSION: AUTOCRACY, DESPOTISM AND DEMOCRACY ........427 3 INTRODUCTION I was established as king by Him, upon Sion His holy mountain, Proclaiming the commandment of the Lord. Psalm 2.6. Politics is a phenomenon that is difficult to “place” within the traditional spheres of theological thought. On the one hand, it can be argued that politics has nothing at all to do with theology, except as being perhaps the foremost tool of Satan’s persecution of Christians and the Church; for it is the essence of “the world that lies in evil” and forms no part of the traditional subjects of theological knowledge: God, Christ, the Church, spirituality, the life of the age to come… On the other hand, it can equally be argued that nothing specifically human is alien to theology insofar as the aim of the Christian life is to bring all spheres of human activity into obedience to the Grace-filled life in Christ; and politics, being an inescapable and extremely important part of all organized social life, is no exception to this rule. In any case, was not Christ a King as well as a Priest and a Prophet, “the King of kings and Lord of lords”? And while He said that His Kingdom was “not of this world”, is it not significant that He spoke these words – almost His last on earth – in the context of a discussion of the origin and limits of political power with Caesar’s representative, Pontius Pilate? And did not the Prophets and Apostles speak frequently about the duties of kings and subjects, and the destinies of peoples and kingdoms – not least, of the kingdom of the Antichrist that will threaten to wipe out the last vestiges of Christianity at the end of the world? The truth is that the manifestations of political power range from genocide and the imposition of mass apostasy to the most selfless and beneficial service to mankind and the Church. Thus in opposition to Nero and Diocletian and Stalin we see the Prophet-King David, St. Constantine the Great and Tsar- Martyr Nicholas II… Moreover, just as fallen eros is transfigured
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making Autocracy Work
    ∗ Making Autocracy Work Timothy Besley Masayuki Kudamatsu LSE and CIFAR LSE The Suntory Centre Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE DEDPS 48 May 2007 Tel: (020) 7955 6674 ∗ The first author is grateful for support from CIFAR. The authors received much helpful feedback from members of the Institutions, Organizations and Growth program of CIFAR to which a preliminary version of this paper was presented. Useful comments from Madhav Aney, Fernando Aragon, Peter Evans, Gabriel Leon, Adam Przeworski, Konstantin Sonin, and Guido Tabellini are gratefully acknowledged. Abstract One of the key goals of political economy is to understand how institutional arrangements shape policy outcomes. This paper studies a comparatively neglected aspect of this - the forces that shape heterogeneous performance of autocracies. The paper develops a simple theoretical model of accountability in the absence of regularized elections. Leadership turnover is managed by a selectorate - a group of individuals on whom the leader depends to hold onto power. Good policy is institutionalized when the selectorate removes poorly performing leaders from office. This requires that the selectorate’s hold on power is not too dependent on a specific leader being in office. The paper looks empirically at spells of autocracy to establish cases where it has been successful according to various objective criteria. We use these case studies to identify the selectorate in specific instances of successful autocracy. We also show that, consistent with the theory, leadership turnover in successful autocracies is higher than in unsuccessful autocracies. Finally, we show by exploiting leadership deaths from natural causes that successful autocracies appear to have found ways for selectorates to nominate successors without losing power - a feature which is also consistent with the theoretical approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Participation in Government
    Autocracy, Oligarchy, & Democracy © 2014 Brain Wrinkles In each country, the people have different rights to participate in the government. •In some countries, any citizen can run for office or vote in elections. •In other countries, there are restrictions placed on who can run for office and who can vote. •There are also countries where NO citizen can vote and there are no elections. © 2014 Brain Wrinkles Types of Government are based on two key questions: 1. Who governs the country? 2. What is the citizen participation like? The way a country answers these questions determines its government type: Autocracy Oligarchy Democracy © 2014 Brain Wrinkles • Have a single ruler with unlimited power. • Citizens cannot participate in the selection of the ruler or vote on the country’s laws. • One benefit – decisions for the country can be made quickly. • However…the needs of the citizens may be ignored. • The leader may make poor or selfish decisions that hurt the citizens. © 2014 Brain Wrinkles Generally the power to rule the country is inherited (kings/queens) or is taken by military force. There are two main types of autocracies: Dictatorshi Absolute Monarchy • Thep leader uses force • The monarch has to control the citizens. absolute power (no • Example: Hitler constitution) over the citizens. © 2014 Brain Wrinkles © 2014 Brain Wrinkles • The country is ruled by a small group of people. •The group gets their power from either religion, military force, or wealth & resources. • The citizens do not select the members of this group or vote on the country’s laws. © 2014 Brain Wrinkles The citizens hold the power of the government.
    [Show full text]
  • Sorcerer's Apprentices
    Faculty & Research The Spirit of Despotism: Understanding the Tyrant Within by M. Kets de Vries 2004/17/ENT Working Paper Series The Spirit of Despotism: Understanding the Tyrant Within Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries* * Raoul de Vitry d’Avaucourt Clinical Professor of Leadership Development, INSEAD, France & Singapore. Director, INSEAD’s Global Leadership Centre. 1 Abstract The objective of this article is to better understand the developmental history of despotic regimes and the existence of leadership by terror. To gain greater insight into this phenomenon, the unusual relationship between leaders and followers in despotic regimes is explored, and the self-destructive cycle that characterizes such regimes is examined. The price paid in the form of human suffering and the breakdown of the moral fabric of a society is highlighted. In this article, particular attention is paid to highly intrusive totalitarian regimes. The levers used by such regimes to consolidate their power base are discussed in detail. The role of ideology, the enforcement of mind-control, the impact of the media, the inception of the illusion of solidarity, and the search for scapegoats are part of the review. Finally, suggestions are made on how to prevent despotic leaders from gaining a hold on power. Observations are made about the newly founded International Criminal Court, a permanent international judicial body that has been specially set up to try despotic rulers for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. KEY WORDS: Despotism; tyrant; leadership; totalitarianism; autocracy; tyranny; dictatorship; societal regression; democracy; paranoia; narcissism; scapegoat; ideology; mind-control; aggression; violence; sadism; terror; genocide; war; crimes against humanity; war criminal; International Criminal Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Foundations of Authoritarian Rule
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2017 The conomicE Foundations of Authoritarian Rule Clay Robert Fuller University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Fuller, C. R.(2017). The Economic Foundations of Authoritarian Rule. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4202 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE by Clay Robert Fuller Bachelor of Arts West Virginia State University, 2008 Master of Arts Texas State University, 2010 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2014 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: John Hsieh, Major Professor Harvey Starr, Committee Member Timothy Peterson, Committee Member Gerald McDermott, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright Clay Robert Fuller, 2017 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION for Henry, Shannon, Mom & Dad iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks goes to God, the unconditional love and support of my wife, parents and extended family, my dissertation committee, Alex, the institutions of the United States of America, the State of South Carolina, the University of South Carolina, the Department of Political Science faculty and staff, the Walker Institute of International and Area Studies faculty and staff, the Center for Teaching Excellence, undergraduate political science majors at South Carolina who helped along the way, and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption in Autocracies∗
    Corruption in Autocracies∗ James R. Hollyery Yale University Leonard Wantchekon Princeton University September 2011 Abstract Corruption is typically depicted as a result of one of two factors: a lack of polit- ical accountability or insufficient state capacity. Nonetheless, substantial variation in corruption levels exists even within the set of politically unaccountable high-capacity regimes. In this paper, we examine a third determinant of corruption – the ideological appeal of the government – and demonstrate that this variable can explain variation in the types and levels of corruption experienced in politically unaccountable regimes. Using a model of both moral hazard and adverse selection, we predict that (1) regimes that inspire the intense ideological loyalty of the populace are likely to enjoy low lev- els of petty corruption and that (2) autocratic regimes that enjoy such intense support from only a narrow segment of the populace will erect credible anti-corruption insti- tutions. Political corruption, by contrast, need not covary with levels of ideological support. We illustrate the mechanisms of our model through a series of case studies that demonstrate the importance of ideology in driving levels of corruption – with a particular focus on low levels of corruption in ‘developmentalist’ regimes. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our findings to other – democratic – political settings. ∗We would like to thank José Antonio Cheibub, Sunkyoung Park, Peter Rosendorff, Kongjoo Shin, Alberto Simpser and participants in the 2011 APSA Panel on Audits and Government Accountability in the Devel- oping World and participants in the 2011 EPSA Conference Panel on the Political Economy of Authoritarian Regimes for comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • WORKING PAPER Legitimizing Autocracy: Re-Framing the Analysis of Corporate Relations to Undemocratic Regimes
    WP 2020/1 ISSN: 2464-4005 www.nhh.no WORKING PAPER Legitimizing autocracy: Re-framing the analysis of corporate relations to undemocratic regimes Ivar Kolstad Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law Institutt for regnskap, revisjon og rettsvitenskap Legitimizing autocracy: Re-framing the analysis of corporate relations to undemocratic regimes Ivar Kolstad Abstract Recent work in political economy suggests that autocratic regimes have been moving from an approach of mass repression based on violence, towards one of manipulation of information, where highlighting regime performance is a strategy used to boost regime popularity and maintain control. This presents a challenge to normative analyses of the role of corporations in undemocratic countries, which have tended to focus on the concept of complicity. This paper introduces the concept of legitimization, defined as adding to the authority of an agent, and traces out the implications of adopting this concept as a central element of the analysis of corporate relations to autocratic regimes. Corporations confer legitimacy on autocratic governments through a number of material and symbolic activities, including by praising their economic performance. We identify the ethically problematic aspects of legitimization, argue that praise for autocratic regime performance lacks empirical support, and outline a research agenda on legitimization. Keywords: Complicity, legitimization, legitimacy, corporate political activity, democracy Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway. Tel: +47 55 95 93 24. E-mail: [email protected]. 1 1. Introduction «China’s done an unbelievable job of lifting people out of poverty. They’ve done an incredible job – far beyond what any country has done – we were talking about mid-90s to today – the biggest change is the number of people that have been pulled out of poverty, by far.
    [Show full text]
  • Enlightened Despotism
    ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM FRITZ HARTUNG 2s 6d PUBLISHED FOR THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION BY ROUTLEDGE AND KEGAN PAUL [G. 36] ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM THIS PAMPHLET IS GENERAL SERIES NUMBER 36 First published 1957 Reprinted 1963 FRITZ HARTUNG Copyright by the Historical Association Printed in Great Britain by Cox and Wyman Ltd., London, Reading and Fakenham Non-members may obtain copies 2s. 6d. each (post free], and members may obtain extra copies at is. 6d. each (postfree) from the Hon. Secretary of the Associa- tion, 59A, Kennington Park Road, London, S.E.li The publication of a pamphlet by the Historical Association does not necessarily imply the Association s official approbation of the opinions expressed therein Obtainable only through booksellers or from the offices of the Association 1957 Reprinted 1963 ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM SAINT AUGUSTINE once said: " If no one enquires of me, I know; if I want to explain to an enquirer, I do not know ". That is also the position of historians who have to deal with " En- lightened Absolutism ", or (as it is usually called in English) " Enlightened Despotism". When, some forty years ago, lecturing on modern constitutional history, I had for the first PREFACE time to deal with the subject in detail, it was still possible to treat it as a clearly defined and unambiguous notion. It was, It is a privilege for the Historical Association to have the opportunity of publishing this pamphlet by Professor Fritz Hartung, in an English version prepared by Miss in fact, the only stage which in the controversy about the H. Otto and revised by the present writer.
    [Show full text]
  • SS.7.C.3.1 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation
    SS.7.C.3.1 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question Which statement correctly describes communism? The correct answer should describe communism, which is a form of government. A The central government controls all Correct – Communism is a form of government in which a single ruling economic planning. party owns and controls all production and distribution of goods. Economic planning includes the buying, selling, and production of goods and services. B Workers are considered to be the lowest Incorrect – Communism establishes a classless society. social class. C Property ownership is determined by Incorrect – Communism ends privately owned property. family status. D Wealth is distributed according to social Incorrect – Communism establishes a classless society. class. SS.7.C.3.1 Moderate Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question What do an absoute monarchy and an autocracy have in common? Compare and contrast two forms of government. The correct answer should identify a characteristic shared by both an absolute monarchy and an autocracy. A a single ruler Correct – Both autocracies and absolute monarchies are forms of government where a single ruler possesses all governmental power. B a written constitution Incorrect – An absolute monarch’s power is not limited by a written constitution; a limited or constitutional monarchy would limit a monarch with a written constitution. C a national court system Incorrect – Neither form of government requires a national court system. D a single legislative house Incorrect – Neither form of government requires a single legislative house. SS.7.C.3.1 High Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question The image below includes a statement influenced by an Analyze the image and text.
    [Show full text]
  • Dictators in Exile: Explaining the Destinations of Ex-Rulers
    Dictators in Exile: Explaining the Destinations of Ex-Rulers Abel Escrib`a-Folch∗ Daniel Krcmaricy Forthcoming in the Journal of Politics Abstract: Exile has been the second most common fate for dictators who lost office since World War II, yet scholars know little about this phenomenon. In this article, we ask a simple yet previously unanswered question: where do exiled dictators go? We argue that three sets of factors|transnational ties, geographic proximity, and monadic characteristics of potential host states—influence where dictators flee. For evidence, we use original data on exile destinations to construct a directed dyadic dataset of all autocratic rulers who fled abroad upon their ouster. We find that dictators are more likely to go into exile in states that are close neighbors, have hosted other dictators in the past, are militarily powerful, and possess colonial links, formal alliances, and economic ties. By contrast, fleeing dictators tend to avoid democratic states and countries experiencing civil conflict. These findings raise broader implications for several outcomes ranging from regime transitions to conflict termination. Keywords: dictators, exile, post-tenure fate ∗Abel Escrib`a-Folch ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. yDaniel Krcmaric ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208. Losing power is dangerous for dictators. When their time in office comes to an end, they face a higher risk of punishment such as death or imprisonment than democratic leaders (e.g., Goemans 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Basis of Despotism Oriental Despotism—A Comparative Study of Total Power by Karl a Wittfogel
    THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY November 2, 1957 Book Review The Basis of Despotism Oriental Despotism—A Comparative Study of Total Power by Karl A Wittfogel. Yale University Press, 1957. Pp XDC + 556. Price $7.50 or Ra 37.50. D D Kosambi THE contents of this Impressive, The author, so we are told, ex- settlements located on the coast of beautifully printed and well got perienced the despotism of absolute Thana, south of modern Bombay". up publication with its usual para­ total power at first hand in one of The Manigramam, the Shreni, or phernalia of current American scho­ Hitler's concentration camps. Yett the Vira-Vanunja trading caste In larship leave very much to be de­ there is no analysis of that parti­ India, and the gigantic and really sired. Perhaps the most extra­ cular experience. On pages 143 to powerful Hong merchants' organi­ ordinary feature of this book (and 149, we find that terror and torture sations in China are not allowed to many others like it) Is the pro- are prominent features of oriental disturb the reader's consciousness foundly meaningless terminology, despotism. "It was left to the The Arthaahustra Is quoted (with­ such as the following; hydraulic masters of the Communist appa­ out understanding) several times, civilization; agromanagerial society;' ratus state to reverse the humaniz­ but nothing whatever has been said agrobureaucratic and agrodespotic ing trend and to reintroduce the of the benign rule of Ashoka, just regimes. One can understand the systematic infliction of physical pain after the Arthashastra, Why this function of the fluid in the working for the purpose of extracting 'con­ sudden reversal of despotism in thai of a hydraulic press, a hydraulic lift, fessions' " (p 147).
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Autocracy Readings
    Autocracy (Dictatorship) A dictatorship is a government headed by a dictator. Originally a legitimate military office in the Roman Republic, the dictator was given his powers by the Senate. The dictator had absolute power, but for a limited time. In the twentieth century, the term dictatorship has come to mean a government in which absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a dictator and sometimes his cronies. Many dictators have held the formal title of "President", but wield extraordinary, often non- constitutional or de facto powers. Dictators can come to power in a variety of different ways. They can be elected (see below), be appointed by the resident ruling party or Communist hierarchy, or inherit their position from a deceased relative. Still other modern dictators seize power in a military coup d’tat, and are supported by the military. The dictator generally controls the three state powers: legislative, executive and judicial. In a dictatorship, there is not periodical universal, free, direct and secret polling of the citizens to elect the leaders. Sometimes dictators can initially obtain power from democratic elections (like Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany), but shortly after being elected the dictator will ban all opposing parties and cancel all future elections (see human rights). Though free elections will never occur under a dictatorship, sometimes dictators orchestrate phony elections in an attempt to grant themselves some illusion of democratic legitimacy and public support. Usually, the dictator runs for "re-election" unopposed, with voters being asked to answer a simple "yes or no" ballot on the leader's continued rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Power, Proximity, and Democracy: Geopolitical Competition in the International System
    Power, Proximity, and Democracy: Geopolitical Competition in the International System By Jonathan N. Markowitz School of International Relations University of Southern California (Corresponding Author: [email protected]) and Christopher J. Fariss Department of Political Science University of Michigan Abstract Why do only some powerful states choose to develop power projection capabilities, but not others? To answer this question, we advance the theoretical proposition that states choose to develop power projection capabilities when they face a competitive geopolitical environment. This proposition is derived from our theory, which is used to construct a new measure of the level of geopolitical competition that every state in the system faces. This measure incorporates each state’s relative geographic position to every other state in the international system, the relative amount of economic power of those other states, and the degree to which their interests are compatible. We then apply this unique country-year measure to test the proposition that competitive environments are associated with the development of power projection capabilities, as measured by the tonnage and count of naval ships maintained by each country each year. We demonstrate that our measure helps explain the degree to which states choose to invest in power projection capabilities. Keywords: democratic institutions, military power, international security, interstate conflict, liberal peace Word Count: 9,994 ! JONATHAN!MARKOWITZ,!b.1983,!PhD!in!Political!Science!(University!of!California,!San!Diego);!
    [Show full text]