Measuring Effective Democracy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Measuring Effective Democracy Measuring Effective Democracy The Human Empowerment Approach Amy C. Alexander and Christian Welzel Various categorizations have emerged to describe the growing number of ineffective democracies in the hybrid zone between blatant autocracy and fully effective democ- racy.1 Despite differences in terminology, scholars agree that state failure in the enforce- ment of rule of law is the key factor separating effective from ineffective democracies.2 Applying this distinction, categorical approaches prevail that dichotomize effective against ineffective democracies.3 By contrast, only one attempt has been made with gradual data on state deficiencies to produce a continuous index of “effective democ- racy.”4 This index could be a useful tool for democracy assessment at a time when the phenomenon of ineffective democracy is gaining significance.5 However, the conceptual rationales that inform the index of effective democracy have not been outlined in satisfactory detail.6 Nor has a systematic validity test been conducted to demonstrate the performance of the index in comparison to other estab- lished democracy indices. This article fills this gap by explicating the conceptual basis of the index of effective democracy and demonstrating the index’s empirical qualities. Conceptualizing Effective Democracy People Power as the Root Meaning of Democracy In its literal meaning, “govern- ment by the people,” democracy is inspired by the idea of empowering people to govern their lives.7 Against such a common understanding, one might object that democracy has been defined in too many different ways to be subsumed under one definition. Indeed, one cannot dispute variation when scholars define democracy at the level of its concrete institutional manifestations.8 Still, we hold that “people power” is the root meaning that provides the inspirational source of most understandings of democracy. One can sub- stantiate this claim from four perspectives: (1) the views of democracy held by ordinary people around the world, (2) the views of democracy that are evident in the goals for which democracy movements of the past and today struggle, (3) the views of democracy that are manifest in constitutional priorities, and (4) the views of democracy championed by leading theorists of democracy. As concerns the views of democracy held by ordinary people, there is broad evi- dence from the Global Barometer Surveys and the World Values Surveys that what 271 Comparative Politics April 2011 comes first to people’s minds when they think about democracy are the rights that give people choices in governing their personal lives, and a voice and vote to shape public life.9 When confronted with the word “democracy,” be it in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, or Europe, people emphasize, before anything else, the rights that empower people. Examining the goals for which democracy movements of the past and present strug- gle reveals the same meaning. Modern democracy originates in the liberal revolutions of the eighteenth century.10 These upheavals became significant through rights-setting acts of epochal importance, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French Declaration des Droits de L’Homme et des Citoyens in 1789.11 These declara- tions entitled parts of the public to assert personal and political freedoms, empowering significant shares of the population to govern their private and public lives. This achievement established partial democracy, where a majority of the adult population remained excluded from suffrage. But even though partial democracy was intended by some to prevent full democracy, it actually paved the way to full democracy. For the empowerment of limited parts of the public encouraged further struggles by extant excluded groups to also push for empowerment, until universal suffrage established full democracies at the end of the nineteenth century.12 Since then, people’s struggles for democracy continue. Within established democracies, civil rights and equal opportunity movements fight to advance democracy’s empowering qualities.13 Beyond established democracies, people power movements pressure to replace autocracy with democracy.14 Looking at the priorities that are evident in the order in which democratic constitu- tions are organized, it is obvious that model constitutions, like those of the United States, France, or the German Basic Law, start with the rights of the people.15 If this ordering is indicative of a priority, it means that the basis of democracy is the rights that empower ordinary people. In political theory, conceptions of democracy vary from Schumpeter’s minimalist definition of “electoral democracy” to Barber’s maximalist definition of “strong democ- racy.”16 Yet, as much as definitions of democracy differ in scope, they all have one thing in common: in the democratic condition, people are more empowered than in the non- democratic condition.17 Different conceptions of democracy operate with widely dif- ferent notions of what people power means; yet they all operate on a notion of people power as the core meaning of democracy. In conclusion, the literal meaning of democracy, the dominant popular understand- ing of democracy, the goals of past and present democracy movements, the priorities of order in model democratic constitutions, and the notions of democracy in political theory are all based on people power as the root meaning of democracy. Popular Rights as First-Order Tools of Democracy The institutional feature most directly instrumental to the idea of people power is popular rights. It is the inherent purpose of rights to empower their beholders by entitling them to practice some form of freedom.18 To have the power to govern their lives, people need two forms of free- dom: the freedom to follow their personal preferences in their private lives and the 272 Amy C. Alexander and Christian Welzel freedom to make their political preferences count in public life.19 The first form of freedom is private and is granted by personal rights; the second form is public and is granted by political rights.20 In an empowerment perspective, personal rights and political rights are distinct but not contradictory. Instead, personal rights and political rights complement each other in granting people the power to govern themselves. Self- governance in state-societies always has a private life dimension and a public life dimension, so rights must be granted in both to empower people.21 From the viewpoint of people empowerment, popular rights constitute the first- order tool of democracy. Other institutional features of democracy, such as political pluralism or an independent judiciary, are second-order. They exist to make a full set of popular rights work.22 For instance, the right to a free vote in elections can only work if candidates compete for votes with alternative policy programs. Thus, political com- petition is instrumental to a genuinely free vote. Likewise, the right to be protected from abuses of executive power can only work if an independent judiciary is accessible to litigate executive authorities. The major point, then, is clear. Institutional features of democracy that do not themselves stipulate rights are instrumental to the functioning of rights. Measuring popular rights is thus a proper way to operationalize democracy when people power is democracy’s root meaning.23 Democracy’s Gradual Nature As long as one can list a substantial number of popu- lar rights, democracy varies by degree. It varies by degree between the entire absence of people power when not a single right is granted and the full presence of people power when each known right is granted. These are endpoints on a continuum that can be scaled in percentages of the known maximum of popular rights. This percentage scale has a natural minimum at 0 when no popular right is granted and a natural maximum at 100 when all are granted. There are some natural cut-off points on this percentage scale, as depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 People Power as the Percentage of Popular Rights Granted by a State More Autocratic More Democratic Hybrid Zone More More More More Completely Incompletely Incompletely Completely Autocratic Autocratic Democratic Democratic 0 510152025 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 NO RIGHT EACH RIGHT GRANTED K N O W N P O P U L A R R I G H T S GRANTED 273 Comparative Politics April 2011 The 50 percent mark constitutes an intuitively meaningful cut-off point. Below this point, states ignore more rights than they enact, so they deny the people more power than they grant. This classifies all states below the 50 percent mark as “autocracies.” By contrast, all states above 50 points enact more rights than they deny, so they grant the people more power than they refuse. This classifies states above 50 percent as “democ- racies.” The 25 and 75 percent marks provide equally meaningful cut-off points. The 75 percent mark divides democracies into those closer to the democratic maximum and those closer to the neutral point. This classifies the former ones as “complete democracies” and the latter ones as “incomplete democracies.” Among autocracies, the 25 percent mark operates in similar fashion, separating “complete autocracies” from “incomplete autocracies.” People power differentiates between autocracy and democracy as much as it dif- ferentiates within these categories, accounting for how completely autocratic and democratic a state is. The differences that separate autocracies from democracies and the differences that separate complete from incomplete versions of these regime categories are differences on the same underlying continuum—the scope of rights granted to the people. Rule of Law as the Effectiveness Factor of Popular Rights There are features that define democracy and features that make the defining features effective. Popular rights are the key defining feature of democracy and for that matter establish nominal democ- racy. But even if they are granted to their full extent, in real practice given rights may not be effectively respected.
Recommended publications
  • Why No Democracy in the Arab-Muslim World? the Importance of Temple Financing and Tax Farming
    = = = = = = = Why No Democracy in the Arab-Muslim World? The Importance of Temple Financing and Tax Farming Bo Rothstein Rasmus Broms = = = = = = = = = QoG WORKING PAPER SERIES 2010:24= = THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg Box 711 SE 405 30 GÖTEBORG December 2010 ISSN 1653-8919 © 2010 by Bo Rothstein and Rasmus Broms. All rights reserved. Why No Democracy in the Arab-Muslim World? The Importance of Temple Financing and Tax Farming Bo Rothstein Rasmus Broms QoG Working Paper Series 2010:24 December 2010 ISSN 1653-8919 Abstract The absence of a single democracy in the Arab-Muslim world has become a “striking anomaly” for scholars of democratization. The lack of democratization in this part of the world cannot be seen as caused religion as such since there are by now several states with a majority of Muslims that have become democracies. Several other explanations such as values, culture, economic development, rulers’ access to natural resources or the history of colonialism have been refuted. We present a novel explanation for this puzzle that is based on historical variations in “temple financing”. In Northwestern Europe, religion and also secular services managed by local religious institutions have been financed “from below” creating local systems for semi- democratic representation, transparency and accountability. In the Arab-Muslim region, religion and local secular services have been financed “from above” by private foundations that have lacked systems for representation and accountability. It is thus not religion, but how religion has been financed, that is the explanation for the lack of democracy in the Arab-Muslim world.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Reconfigured Power in Africa Richard Joseph
    “The third wave of democracy did sweep across much of sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s, but has now subsided, except for ripples and eddies.” Democracy and Reconfigured Power in Africa richarD Joseph n July 2009, President Barack Obama declared This is an appropriate moment, therefore, to in Accra, Ghana, that Africa no longer needs step back from the volatility and try to under- Istrongmen—it needs strong institutions. stand the deeper dynamics of political change Almost a year later, at a meeting of the African and continuity in the region. In this exercise, Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Secretary of State the perspective of Richard L. Sklar, a longtime Hillary Clinton contended that many African lead- student of African affairs and retired professor of ers seem more concerned with staying eternally political science at the University of California, in power than with ably serving their people. In Los Angeles, is helpful. Sklar has argued for the some cases, she said, democracy “as one election, importance of studying power and the means by one time” still prevails. which it is acquired and exercised. He contends How much do these views correspond with what that all governmental systems are mixed, and is taking place in African countries? What patterns everything that is good in governance may not emerge in the configuration of political power? And necessarily be “democratic.” finally, how do we assess Africa’s democratic pros- Sklar calls attention, for example, to the sig- pects in light of global developments? nificance of oligarchic entities, such as the US As once impregnable autocracies fall in North Supreme Court or the British House of Lords, Africa, the people of sub-Saharan Africa can in capitalist democracies.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Democracy the World of Political Science— the Development of the Discipline
    Electronic Democracy The World of Political Science— The development of the discipline Book series edited by Michael Stein and John Trent Professors Michael B. Stein and John E. Trent are the co-editors of the book series “The World of Political Science”. The former is visiting professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Emeritus Professor, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The latter is a Fellow in the Center of Governance of the University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and a former professor in its Department of Political Science. Norbert Kersting (ed.) Electronic Democracy Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2012 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-86649-546-3. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org © 2012 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. (CC- BY-SA 4.0) It permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you share under the same license, give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ © 2012 Dieses Werk ist beim Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH erschienen und steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Diese Lizenz erlaubt die Verbreitung, Speicherung, Vervielfältigung und Bearbeitung bei Verwendung der gleichen CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz und unter Angabe der UrheberInnen, Rechte, Änderungen und verwendeten Lizenz.
    [Show full text]
  • International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Autocracy 18
    Democracy and Autocracy Vol. 18(1) Feb. 2020 “Is Democracy Promotion Dead?” Democracy and Autocracy Section American Political Science Association Published by the Weiser Center for Emerging Democracies (WCED), University of Michigan VOL.18(1) Democracy and Autocracy Feb. 2020 New Decade, New Name, New IN THIS ISSUE Home Executive Editors’ Note New Decade, New Name, New Home …2 Dan Slater and Rob Mickey, Executive Editors Dan Slater, Ronald and Eileen Weiser Professor of Emerging Democracies, University of Michigan Democracy Promotion: Dead, Dying, or Rob Mickey, Associate Professor of Political Science, Dormant?…3 University of Michigan Matthew Cebul, Guest Editor It has been nearly twenty years since APSA established What We Know—and Don’t—About its first organized section devoted entirely to the topic Democratization, and Why it Matters for of democratization. Much has changed since then, from Democracy Promotion…5 the burst of democratic optimism of the early 2010s Erica Frantz and Jeffrey Conroy-Krutz to the more recent wave of autocratic reaction. These changes are reflected in the new name for both our Democracy Promotion and Conflict: organized section and our newsletter. What was once the Successes and Continuing Challenges…10 section on Comparative Democratization and its Annals Jennifer Raymond Dresden, Thomas Edward Flores, of Comparative Democratization is now captured by one Irfan Nooruddin shared name: Democracy and Autocracy. Democracy Promotion in an Age of The new decade has not only brought our newsletter Democratic Backsliding…16 a new name, but a new home. This is the inaugural Ellen Lust and David Waldner issue published by the Weiser Center for Emerging Democracies (WCED) at the University of Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Does Cause Growth∗
    Democracy Does Cause Growth∗ Daron Acemoglu Suresh Naidu Pascual Restrepo James A. Robinson MIT Columbia BU Chicago April 2017 Abstract We provide evidence that democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP per capita. Our empirical strategy controls for country fixed effects and the rich dynamics of GDP, which otherwise confound the effect of democracy on economic growth. To reduce measurement error, we introduce a new dichotomous measure of democracy that consolidates the information from several sources. Our baseline results use a dynamic panel model for GDP, and show that democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run. We find similar effects of democratizations on annual GDP when we control for the estimated propensity of a country to democratize based on past GDP dynamics. We obtain comparable estimates when we instrument democracy using regional waves of democratizations and reversals. Our results suggest that democ- racy increases GDP by encouraging investment, increasing schooling, inducing economic reforms, improving the provision of public goods, and reducing social unrest. We find little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed economies. Keywords: Democracy, Growth, Political Development. JEL Classification: P16, O10. ∗ We thank Isaiah Andrews, Joshua Angrist, Jushan Bai, Harald Uhlig, two referees, and seminar participants at AEA 2015, NYU-Abu Dhabi, Boston University and Harvard for very useful comments. Acemoglu gratefully acknowledges support from the Bradley Foundation and ARO MURI Award No. W911NF-12-1-0509. 1 Introduction With the spectacular economic growth under nondemocracy in China, the eclipse of the Arab Spring, and the recent rise of populist politics in Europe and the United States, the view that democratic institutions are at best irrelevant and at worst a hindrance for economic growth has become increasingly popular both in academia and policy discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy's Third Wave Samuel P
    Spring 1991 $7.50 Democracy's Third Wave Samuel P. Huntington Can Yugoslavia Survive? Mihajlo Mihajlov Soviet Reaction, Russian Reform Gail W. Lapidus • Oleg Rumyantsev Liu Binyan on China Larry Diamond on Nigeria Gehad Auda on Egypt Sung-Joo Han on Korea Overcoming Underdevelopment Hernando de Soto & Deborah Orsini DEMOCRACY'S THIRD WAVE Samuel P. Huntington Samuel P. Huntington is Eaton Professor of tile Science of Government and director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. Material in his article is based upon the 1989 Julian J. Rothbaum Lectures at tile Carl Albert Center of the University of Oklahoma, to be published as The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Universit3' of Oklahoma Press. 1991), and is used here by permission of the Press. Between 1974 and 1990, at least 30 countries made transitions to democracy, just about doubling the number of democratic governments in the world. Were these democratizations part of a continuing and ever- expanding "global democratic revolution" that will reach virtually every country in the world? Or did they represent a limited expansion of democracy, involving for the most part its reintroduction into countries that had experienced it in the past? The current era of democratic transitions constitutes the third wave of democratization in the history of the modern world. The first "'long" wave of democratization began in the 1820s, with the widening of the suffrage to a large proportion of the male population in the United States, and continued for almost a century until 1926, bringing into being some 29 democracies.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Democracy: the Threat of Counter-Narratives
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector EUROPeAN VIew (2015) 14:145–154 DOI 10.1007/s12290-015-0369-z ARTICLE Liberal democracy: the threat of counter‑narratives Ingrid Habets Published online: 23 November 2015 © The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The universalism of liberal democracy is under attack. While the number of democracies in the world has increased, the level of freedom in them has declined. Electoral or illiberal democracies only provide the minimum standard of democracy, where individual liberties remain unprotected. Furthermore, these illiberal democracies have developed counter-narratives that attack the liberal international order, and with it, liberal democracy. These counter-narratives, supported by Russia, China and other undemocratic regimes, confront liberal democracy in three ways: first, they trivialise the violation of individual liberties for the sake of increasing state security; second, the claim of civilisational diversity is used to reject democratic values as incompatible with their culture; and third, they accuse the West of the moral decay of ‘traditional’ values. Moreover, these authoritarian narratives play to the West’s weaknesses. The West needs to defend its hard-won liberties, rights and values by confronting these counter- narratives. Furthermore, citizens have a moral duty to participate politically in order to ensure that democracy continues to work. The transatlantic
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Democracy: Concepts, Measures, and Empirical Relationships
    Developing Democracy: Concepts, Measures, and Empirical Relationships Dr Todd Landman Centre for Democratic Governance Department of Government University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ United Kingdom [email protected] Background paper prepared for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, May 2007. Copyright © International IDEA Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Defining Democracy........................................................................................................... 2 Measuring Democracy........................................................................................................ 4 Democracy Scales........................................................................................................... 5 Objective Measures of Democracy................................................................................. 6 Hybrid Measures of Democracy ..................................................................................... 7 Perceptions of Democracy and Trust in Institutions....................................................... 7 International IDEA and Democracy Assessment ........................................................... 8 Causes and Consequences of Democracy..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Which Islam-Ism? Diversity in Islamic Society and Its Implications for Democracy
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-2006 Which Islam-Ism? Diversity in Islamic Society and Its Implications for Democracy Christopher M. Ebsch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Ebsch, Christopher M., "Which Islam-Ism? Diversity in Islamic Society and Its Implications for Democracy" (2006). Master's Theses. 5060. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/5060 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • WHICH ISLAM-ISM? DIVERSITY IN ISLAMIC SOCIETY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY by Christopher M. Ebsch A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April2006 © 2006 Christopher M. Ebsch WHICH ISLAM-ISM? DIVERSITY IN ISLAMIC SOCIETY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY Christopher M. Ebsch, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2006 This study aims to refuteclaims ofIslamic exceptionalism in the midst ofrecent waves of democratization, thereby disproving assumptions of any incompatibility between democracy and Islam. My research will show that such sweeping assumptions gloss
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic International Relations: Montesquieu and the Theoretical Foundations of Democratic Peace Theory
    Democratic international relations: Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of democratic peace theory Author Patapan, Haig Published 2012 Journal Title Australian Journal of International Affairs DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2012.672951 Copyright Statement © 2012 Taylor & Francis. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/48265 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Democratic International Relations: Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of Democratic Peace Theory Haig Patapan The article examines the extent to which Montesquieu’s doux commerce thesis, which claims that commerce leads to softening of manners and therefore favours international peace, presents a challenge to democratic peace theory. It argues that Montesquieu’s claim that peace may be due to commerce, and not democracy, provides a theoretical challenge to those scholars who argue that there is a Kantian virtuous triangle of democracy. The practical implication of this theoretical challenge concerns the way democratic peace theory has influenced the practice of international politics, especially American foreign policy. The article argues that Montesquieu’s doux commerce thesis mediates between the contending claims of realism and liberal internationalism over the merits of democratisation as an essential means for
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Democracy: Shared Experiences and EU Intentions
    Developing Democracy: Shared Experiences and EU Intentions Dr Todd Landman, Centre for Democratic Governance, Department of Government, University of Essex, United Kingdom Developing Democracy: Shared Experiences and EU Intentions © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2010 International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden Layout by: Bulls Graphics Developing Democracy: Shared Experiences and EU Intentions Abstract This article discusses the impact of the European Union’s own history and experiences on its commitment to democracy support as part of its foreign policy. The EU’s story is an asset it could use as part of its soft power approach for exchanges with partners in other regions. The EU member states have a specific shared feature in their approach to social welfare systems combined with capitalism, with a broader view of democracy encompassing also aspects of social and economic rights in addition to the political rights. Many lessons can be learned from these developments, internally and externally. The EU foreign policy has increasingly turned to ‘value-based’ issues with a clear commitment to democracy as a fundamental value for all its policies and actions. These value commitments have been important starting points for EU’s external partnerships. It is also something the EU holds in common with a majority of the rest of the world.
    [Show full text]