Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography United States of America

51. Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism

Author:
Jonathan Nash
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
In her book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, Anne Applebaum explores a political shift that many democracies face today. In her analysis of global democracies, Applebaum explains why authoritarianism is on the rise and how it is being welcomed by many. She argues that the world is becoming more authoritarian, and democracy is starting to slip, especially with the recent election of US President Donald Trump. Through her writing, Applebaum hopes to bring awareness to this phenomenon with the hope of recognizing it and resisting it. Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, who has worked for several magazines and newspapers. These include The Spectator, The Evening Standard, Slate, The Daily and Sunday Telegraph, The Economist, The Independent, The Washington Post, and currently The Atlantic. Her career provides her with great access to the top decision-making circles both in Europe and the United States during critical times, including the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the Brexit referendum and its aftermath.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Democracy, Book Review, and Journalism
Political Geography:
Europe, Global Focus, and United States of America

52. New Thinking on Democracy at Home and Abroad

Author:
Sarah E. Mendelson
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassadors Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
The Joseph Biden Administration has rather famously committed to convene a Summit for Democracy, likely later in 2021 or early in 2022. The Summit has become, as some diplomats have suggested, “the talk of the town,” not only in Washington but also in multiple other national capitals. A cottage industry has sprung up debating the who, the what and the where. More focus is needed on the why — which, in turn, ought to shape the how. To my mind, albeit one preoccupied for over a quarter of a century with human rights and democracy, the why is rather straightforward. The alternatives — bending to the rise of authoritarians, or leaving unaddressed the weakened liberal international order that the United States originally helped create —are not in our or our allies’ national interest. Many democracies are experiencing intense challenges on multiple levels. Chief among these is the global pandemic, which revealed deep socioeconomic inequities in societies that have long been labeled “developed,” when in fact these democracies have not been delivering to many communities. Freedom House has now recorded 15 straight years of decline globally in democracy. The crises at home have been widely broadcast: the new Congress came under physical attack January 6 after a U.S. President attempted, as part of a protracted effort, to overturn the 2020 election and prohibit the peaceful transfer of power. How then the Summit for Democracy can help repair and revive democracy here and among our allies needs more consideration and detail. Numerous factors roll up to a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink and refresh exactly how we advance democracy at home and abroad. New approaches, themes and methods can help revitalize strategy and policy. Such new approaches need to connect and account for domestic shortcomings and link progress at home to efforts abroad. In doing so, post-pandemic democracy promotion needs to reflect a comprehensive focus on rights that includes socioeconomic issues and sustainable development (e.g., democracies must deliver dignity). The Biden Administration ought to consider labeling the Summit “Democracies Deliver Dignity and Development” or the 4Ds Summit. The Summit can provide the road map for these new approaches while being informed and shaped by extensive consultations at home and abroad. Finally, new methods should include data-driven, human-centered design shaping foreign assistance as well as elevating local voices. Internationally, that would be a significant change to the dominant modalities, largely Congress-driven, supporting specific types of institution building, such as central election commissions. Such work will undoubtedly continue, given support in Congress and among the U.S.-based NGOs that receive the funding (notwithstanding the damaged credibility of our democracy). At a minimum though, demonstrably demand-driven assistance ought to supplement this older business model in order to better deliver to populations, listening and responding to the multitude of needs.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and NGOs
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

53. How the United States Can Support Nascent Political Parties

Author:
Patrick Quirk and Jan Surotchak
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:
Supporting democracy and human rights overseas is front and center in the Biden administration’s foreign policy. The White House has committed to hold a “summit for democracy” this year, vocally condemned human rights abuses by China, and called for budget increases in foreign assistance and diplomacy critical to execute its democracy agenda abroad. As the Biden team designs this agenda, it will take stock of existing democracy assistance approaches and toolkits to make sure they address the current landscape of threats (i.e., a rise in Russian and Chinese malign influence) and changing needs of democracy partners on the ground (i.e., training on new technology). One area that is in desperate need of an update is how the U.S. helps strengthen political parties abroad, something it has done since the 1980s. The U.S. approach to supporting parties has not kept pace with the evolution of these organizations over the last ten years. Increasingly, political parties are taking novel forms that arise from so called “people power” movements and often focus more on mobilizing voters than formulating policy. One of the four most common types of parties today are those that emerge from mass protest movements and widespread latent dissatisfaction with traditional parties. Examples include the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Union to Save Romania, the New Conservative Party in Latvia, and Semilla in Guatemala. Getting support to this party type ‘right’ is important because many of the countries where these entities are emerging matter for U.S. interests. In both the Czech Republic and Slovakia – NATO allies on the front line of countering Russian and Chinese influence – new, anti-establishment parties are running the government, as traditional parties have struggled with accusations of corruption and failure to meet citizen needs. In Mexico and Brazil, both major strategic partners of the United States, emergent political organizations have taken power. In Iraq, citizens protesting government corruption and inefficiencies have formed several new parties to contest the October 2021 elections and challenge the political establishment. Yet in these and other contexts, the United States lacks an approach to structure its support of such nascent parties. Here, we outline recommendations for selecting which parties to support and then a framework to maximize effectiveness of U.S. assistance to them.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Democracy, Political Parties, Influence, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

54. Trump's Attack on American Democracy: Towards a New Model of Electoral Manipulation in an Established Democratic Republic

Author:
Maria Annala
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
In 2020, President of the United States Donald Trump launched an unprecedented electoral manipulation campaign in an attempt to secure himself a second term in office regardless of what voters decided. This Working Paper seeks to answer three questions: What electoral manipulation methods did Trump use? In what ways were his methods similar to those used previously by other incumbents to interfere with elections in their respective countries? And in what ways did his methods resemble those of election meddling by foreign state actors? To answer the aforesaid questions, this paper seeks to develop a model to describe Trump’s electoral manipulation campaign. The paper finds that Trump used seven different methods: Disinformation, voter suppression, intimidation and violence, intraparty pressure, attacking government institutions, breaking democratic norms, and attempted collusion with one or more foreign states. While most of the methods were not new, their combination was unique. That was to be expected, as Trump was the first 21st century incumbent in a well-established Western democracy to undertake such a massive electoral manipulation campaign.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Violence, Voting, Misinformation, and Election Interference
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

55. What Europeans think about the US-China Cold War

Author:
Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
A majority of European citizens believe a new cold war with both China and Russia is under way – but they mostly do not think that their own country is involved. Most believe the US is already taking part in these confrontations, and they consider EU institutions as more likely than their own governments to be in a cold war with China and Russia. An optimistic interpretation sees the outsourcing of such great-power competition to Brussels as the arrival of a true EU foreign policy – but a more pessimistic analysis sees a gap emerging between Brussels on the one hand and member state capitals and EU citizens on the other. This difference in views between whether one’s own country is taking part in the brewing conflict, as opposed to whether America and the EU are, suggests there is no European public consensus that the world of tomorrow will be one of growing competition between democracy and authoritarianism. Given this risk, policymakers should find a different, less ideological, framing to generate public support for a strong transatlantic alliance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Authoritarianism, European Union, Democracy, Alliance, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

56. The evolution of US strategic priorities

Author:
Carl Bildt
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
The Biden administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance reflects an evolution in US strategic thinking and policy priorities. The document shows how the administration intends to shift away from America Alone and towards America and its Allies. But the optimism and confidence the US expressed in 2015 has been replaced by deep concern over a range of strategic trends. The US will now prioritise strategic competition with China, a new approach to trade, the rise of technology, the defence of democracy, the urgent climate and health crises, and efforts to avoid ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East.
Topic:
Climate Change, Health, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

57. Transatlantic Paralysis: The US-EU Trade Policy Stalemate and the European Union’s Democratic Deficit

Author:
Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
What is often labeled the democratic deficit in governance of the European Union (EU) is not a a flaw or bug in its architecture, it is a design feature. From its earliest days in the Second World War’s chaotic aftermath, European integration “was essentially an elite project, pursued at a distance from the daily concerns of the national populations in Western Europe.” Also formed as a response to the economic disintegration following the Depression and World War Two, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was similarly removed from national or populist politics. It too was an elite, top-down initiative designed to embed nations in a system of international rules largely articulated by technical experts, enforced by a form of international courts, and far removed from national and populist politics. Many of the intellectual proponents of both supranational institutions, from the Austrian School of economics, the ordoliberals emerging in early-20th century Germany, to the London School of Economics indeed shared a distrust of American-style democracy, let alone the various parliamentary democracies whose failure led to the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s. Over the last fifty years, the institutions put in place after World War II have been perfected and have, to a certain extent, ossified. Many of the difficulties in achieving greater US-EU economic coordination in the 21st century have their origins in the institutional design and the subsequent early implementation of early European Community rules during the post-war period. A brief overview of the history of European integration, and the political thinking behind it, helps explain the current paralysis in contemporary transatlantic cooperation, including in a joint approach to the challenge of Chinese mercantilism and its growing international reach.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Democracy, Trade, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

58. The Carter-Baker Commission: 16 Years Later

Author:
The Carter Center
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Carter Center
Abstract:
We have long admired the wisdom and sage approaches that President Jimmy Carter and Secretary James A. Baker, III, have exhibited throughout their careers in public service. Understanding that the delicate balance of our democracy pivots on a fulcrum of support for public projects and policy, they have consistently emphasized strategies designed to achieve key objectives and gain support from both sides of the political aisle.
Topic:
Democracy, Leadership, Public Service, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

59. The Folly of a Democracy-based Grand Strategy

Author:
Benjamin Denison
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
President Biden’s Summit for Democracy exacerbates regime security fears in states such as Russia and China, further destabilizing relations and making it more difficult to advance U.S. interests. U.S. policymakers may claim democracy promotion and regime change are clearly different policies. But years of excessive pursuit of both to prop up U.S. hegemony mean Russia, China, and other non-democracies perceive them as part of a unified U.S. threat to their regimes. China and Russia’s fears for their regime security may be overwrought, but regardless, they encourage those states to collaborate more with each other; resist diplomacy with the United States on other issues, such as arms control; and crack down on dissidents and civil society. Viewing U.S.-backed democracy promotion as a tool of regime change, China and Russia do more to suppress democracy at home and work to undermine it abroad. The U.S. alleviating all of China and Russia’s apparent concerns is impossible and unnecessary; indeed, some regime insecurity is welcome for its restraining influence. But to advance its own interests, the United States should find ways to diminish piqued regime security fears. To reduce regime security fears, especially in China and Russia, the United States should separate democracy promotion from its grand strategy—democracy promotion is not a security priority. Democracy promotion is good but starts at home, by being an exemplar of liberal values.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, and United States of America

60. The Era of Dis-and-Misinformation Volume XXII, Number 1

Author:
Nicole Kalczynski, Rebecca Blaser, Nicholas J. Cull, Peter J. Phillips, Gabriela Pohl, Michael Christensen, Leonie Holthaus, Bohdan Harasymiw, Feeza Vasudeva, Nicholas Barkdull, Arthur D. Soto-Vásquez, Nadra Hashim, and Vincent Chenzi
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
Abstract:
As the world continues to recover from the devastating fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, navigating the harms of misinformation and disinformation remain at the forefront of global conversations on paving the path forward. Preventing the dissemination of false information—particularly during a time where the ways in which we engage with information environments have fundamentally changed—is increasingly complex. Social media platforms have enabled users to not only engage with media but become distributors of it themselves. When coupled with bad actors, limited repercussions, and poor content regulation, social networks are easily weaponized. At all scales of governance misinformation and disinformation campaigns pose a multidimensional threat. In Myanmar and China, disinformation campaigns were leveraged to target minority groups, while in Central and Eastern Europe, they serve as the cornerstone of destabilizing operations between adversarial states. In yet another facet, countries like Turkey, China, Russia, and Iran have embraced digital authoritarianism and restrict policies on internet accessibility under the pretext of stemming the spread of “fake news.” This year’s issue seeks to shed light on the nature of these evolving threats from a variety of innovative and understudied perspectives. This issue explores the causes and effects of the spread of misinformation and disinformation throughout different parts of the world and will be timely for years to come given the ever-increasing role and breadth of new technologies infiltrating people’s everyday lives.
Topic:
Corruption, Human Rights, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Media, Internet, Social Media, Surveillance, COVID-19, Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Sudan, Eurasia, Turkey, Ukraine, Middle East, India, Eastern Europe, Asia, Myanmar, Central Europe, and United States of America