This book constitutes a second volume to Global Perspectives on US Foreign Policy: From the Outside In. It follows the same form as the first volume, providing a range of perspectives of American foreign policy from those who are on the receiving end of it. In this volume, we have chosen to focus on a very contentious aspect of US foreign policy—its efforts at democratization around the globe. Given the existence of an extensive literature examining US democratization assistance, one might ask, is there a need for yet another book on the subject. The answer is yes, because this is a book that explores US assistance with democratization in specific parts of the world, and it is written by natives of the countries under study. This provides a unique perspective for the conduct of these analyses. Understanding US foreign policy as it is understood by those who directly feel its impact, rather than determine it, is an important task, and it is the aim of this volume to assist with providing that understanding. As such, a group of scholars on international relations from around the globe have provided insights into US democratization efforts in their countries (or aspects of it) by giving their perspectives of them. These form the chapters of this book. Some of the theories and insights provided by previous studies and writings on US democratization inform these contributions. The aim, though, is not to rehash debates about US democracy assistance that can be found in the existing literature but rather to add a new dimension to these debates through the addition of broader perspectives that can only be provided by those on the outside looking in.
According to Samuel Huntington, there have been three waves of democratization in international politics. The first wave occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century when demands for suffrage and representation in government were made through revolutions in Europe and the New World. The second wave occurred after World War II and the defeat of the Axis dictatorships. The third wave began in the mid-1970s in Southern Europe and continued through the 1980s and 1990s, spreading to Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa.1 There is debate about whether the “third wave” of democratization is over. As Renske Doorenspleet points out, to determine whether a period of democratization has come to an end scholars must first be able to measure levels of democracy in a state and to be able to define the process, that is, be able to determine what democratization actually is.2 The desire to study the process of democratization, quantify, explain and evaluate it has been felt by scholars all over the world for decades and much effort has been spent in this pursuit.
The literature on US democratization efforts has been focused to a large extent on the former Communist states in Eastern Europe. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, this region represented the first opportunity in the post-Cold War era for the USA to exert its influence over the international political environment. Secondly, the post-Communist states have also proved to be the most successful of the USA’s ventures in this regard (again for many reasons). One such study, conducted by Valerie Bunce and Sharon Wolchik, examined why the wave of democratization occurred in the post-Communist states in such numbers and so quickly as it did. Their argument was that although the institutional aspects of democracy such as elections, and the establishment of them, is important to the transition to this form of government, just as important is the shift in attitude, culture and public thinking or the domestic context within the states that seek democratization. The creation of democratic structures and the transition to elected government is more likely to be successful where the society has adapted its culture and understands the nature of democracy. US aid given to assist in this transition, and its influence over the politics of these countries more generally, is more effective when the local context is understood and aid and influence are used accordingly.3
The difficulty with assessing democracy and progress toward it is that a democratic society depends on a state of mind or social attitude. A commitment to liberal ideals is essential to having a functioning and effective democracy. Jeff Haynes in the introduction to Democracy and Political Change in the ‘Third World’ explains that states can be “façade democracies,” with elections that are regular but tightly controlled and the outcomes of which are manipulated; “electoral democracies,” or states that have elections but very little else in the way of the establishment of democratic society and with no real “buy in” to democratic rule from the people or leaders; and lastly, there are states that can be deemed “full democracies,” in which the established democratic institutions function within a society that has embraced the ideals and values of liberal democratic rule.4 The differences between a façade democracy and a full democracy show the difficulty of defining and measuring democracy because it is a cultural understanding and a commitment to democratic values by the population that defines a full democracy. To measure the level of democracy in a society one must measure a level of cultural maturity or an attitude and the difficulty in this is obvious. Freedom House has attempted to measure specific aspects of democratic development and this remains the best guide for scholars seeking to determine the level of democracy in a society.5
There is a clear connection between the development of democracy and respect for human rights and economic progress that allows the population to achieve security and a reasonable standard of living. Several authors argue that the development of a democratic political system is not necessarily linked to economic development. It is political stability that provides the foundations for economic advancement.6 There are some who argue that making efforts toward democratization is a key criterion for gaining access to Western, and particularly US, markets and other aid. As stability is the precondition for economic success, however, the USA and others are likely to ignore this criterion in favor of political stability if it suits their interests.7 There is also a debate in the literature on democratization about the effectiveness of external aid in this process. The claim is frequently made that external assistance is not as effective as it may seem in the development of a democratic society.8 Steven Finkel and others have argued that this conclusion is drawn from using inappropriate measures. Finkel and his colleagues attempted to measure the effect of US democratic assistance by providing a very clear and narrow definition of “democracy assistance.” In their 2007 study they found that US aid given for the specific purpose of democracy development, as opposed to other more general societal development, was effective and there was a clear finding that the more the money that was given to specific democratic purposes, the better were the outcomes in terms of democratic development.9 Targeted funding, then, spent on specific programs is the best way to provide democracy assistance.
As noted above, many scholars argue that domestic factors and the culture of a society are more important than external drivers in the development of democracy. If this idea is combined with the notion that targeted funding is the most effective form of US democracy assistance, then one might argue that funding directed toward the spreading of US liberal and democratic values and culture was well spent. The idea of “soft power,” then, and the USA’s ability to influence different states’ “mindsets” is significant to the discourse about US democratization efforts around the globe. The USA’s ability to utilize “soft power” and spread the values of liberal democracy and free market economies to drive the world order so that it operates in the USA’s favor is crucial in order for it to maintain its influence over global politics. This book is the product of one example of the use of US soft power and targeted funding for a specific program in its attempts to spread its liberal democratic values—the Study of the United States Institutes. It is on this topic that the book begins. An unforeseen aspect of that program, though, was the ability of international scholars to pull together their views of broader US democratization efforts around the globe. These scholars offer their insights into the international politics of US democratization efforts.
In Chap. 2, Añorve and Burt examine the USA’s use of soft power in its democratization efforts. Using the Studies of the United States Institutes (SUSI) exchange program as a case study, this chapter explores how the USA engages with future leaders of societies around the world to spread democratic ideals. Having experienced life in democratic societies firsthand, participants in the SUSI program are able to develop a deep understanding of the values of democracy. The selection of participants and the countries from which they are chosen is clearly important to US democratization efforts. After providing a brief explanation and definition of soft power, this chapter explores that selection process and its relationship to US foreign policy priorities throughout the duration of the project’s existence. It shows there is a strong connection between the exchange program as a manifestation of soft power and the USA’s foreign policy agenda, but also calls into question the claim that democratization efforts around the globe are a key priority of US foreign policy.
In Chap. 3, Idahosa analyzes the Obama administration’s foreign policy toward Africa, particularly for strengthening democratic institutions in countries of that region. Since early in his time in office, Obama has sought first to strengthen democratic institutions and values in Africa with the view that economic development would follow once the political environment was more conducive. Africans excitedly watched Obama’s first inauguration, hoping that the new president would provide greater focus on USA–Africa relations. However, about midway through his second term, expectations by Africans about his administration’s transformative potential were being doused by the relatively slow pace of change in US foreign policy toward the region. Many observers would like to see Washington match its words with positive deeds that assisted with building democracy in Africa. A serious commitment by both the USA and Africa is needed to ensure a partnership that encourages a more pragmatic approach to instituting democratic governance in the region. Idahosa examines the relationship as it has developed over the last few decades and comments on possibilities for the future.
Masumbe provides an analysis of US democratization efforts in sub-Saharan Africa in Chap. 4. Given the USA’s claims that it defends democracy and assists with its development in states seeking this type of governance, this chapter critically appraises the role of the USA in Africa’s democratization processes. Masumbe attempts to address the lack of significant studies using the human needs paradigm or structural–functional theory as a major research method by providing this as a theoretical framework to show that democratization in this region has worsened rather than improved despite the USA’s involvement in its politics. It is argued that the USA’s immersion into policies surrounding social mobility, inclusiveness of the political system, voters’ consciousness about national politics, and the survival of democracy has resulted in little progress. The USA’s self-interest actually leads to the grasping of political power by the regions’ political leaders and their attempts to end opposition to their rule. This is inimical to the rhetoric espoused by US leaders claiming they embrace free, fair and legitimate political power for leaders in the region, which addresses the challenges of human development and security in Africa.
Chapter 5 also examines African politics, but focuses on Cameroon’s democratization process. The difficult task of reforming the political system in a country already struggling with the basic functioning of governments also had the added challenge of resistance from its ruling elite. External pressure from the USA was felt before 1990, but a sustained campaign from external sources was needed to ensure change could occur. In this chapter, Mokam examines the US contribution to the development of democracy in Cameroon through an analysis of the different actions undertaken throughout this period. From the outset, US representatives in Cameroon wanted quick and radical change. That not being possible, the USA was forced to adopt a new strategy. New American representatives were sent to utilize American soft power through training, financial assistance and logistic assistance to the electoral process. America’s power was exercised through official channels and nongovernment bodies such as the National Democratic Institute. The USA’s contribution was essential to Cameroon’s achievements in the development of its democratic politics.
Frankowski examines the USA’s involvement in the promotion of labor standards and the protection of worker rights around the world in Chap. 6. The USA is not a signatory of most ILO conventions, and labor standards in the USA are not actually protected through international law. Nevertheless, the USA, among others, promotes improved labor standards around the world and uses free trade agreements and other treaties as tools to develop and further global norms relating to labor standards. Frankowski analyzes the limits to external norm promotion by assessing labor clauses in US FTAs and their effectiveness, as well as the relevance of American labor standards to other states. The ways the USA tries to promote labor standards, especially with developing countries, are explored. This chapter seeks to move beyond traditional explanations based on a relatively negative view of the American approach to labor issues, and argues that the USA plays a more important role than other, normatively oriented, actors such as the EU. Finally, it argues that ethical and moral arguments visible in the US position toward labor rights evolved over time, and the labor standards it promoted abroad should be perceived as part of the USA’s global democratization efforts...