Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Artigo Produção Nacional Revisado por pares

BIBTEX RIS

Rising Powers and the Future of Democracy Promotion: the case of Brazil and India

2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 34; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01436597.2013.775789

1360-2241

Oliver Stuenkel,

Political Conflict and Governance

Abstract The dominant position established powers have traditionally held in global affairs is slowly eroding. One of the issues profoundly affected by this process will be democracy promotion, an area traditionally dominated by the USA and Europe on both the policy and the academic level. While several rising democracies—such as Brazil and India—may seem, from a Western point of view, to be ideal candidates to assist the USA and Europe in promoting democracy in a ‘post-Western World’, emerging powers like these are reluctant to embrace the idea. What does this mean for the future of democracy promotion once the USA’s and Europe’s international influence declines further? Notes 1 R Schweller, ‘Emerging powers in an age of disorder’, Global Governance, 17(3), 2011, pp 285–297. 2 S Serfaty, ‘Moving into a post-Western world’, Washington Quarterly, Spring 2011, pp 7–23. 3 There is no consensus on what constitutes an emerging power or a rising power. While China is at times called a rising power (see, for example, GJ Ikenberry, ‘The future of the liberal world order’, Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 2011, pp 56–68; and A Florini, ‘Rising Asian powers and changing global governance’, International Studies Review, 13(1), 2011, pp 24–33), others argue that it is well established within today’s institutions such as the UN Security Council. AI Johnston, ‘Is China a status quo power?’, International Security, 27(4), 2003, pp 5–56. Brazil and India are at times called ‘middle powers’ (C Alden & MA Vieira, ‘The new diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil, India and trilateralism’, Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 2005, pp 1077–1095), ‘rising powers’ (eg A Hurrell, ‘Lula’s Brazil: a rising power, but going where?’, Current History, 107(706), February 2008, pp 51) or ‘emerging powers’ (SP Cohen, India: Emerging Power, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002). The latter two terms will be used interchangeably here, as is commonly done. See, for example Schweller, ‘Emerging powers in an age of disorder’. 4 R Schweller & Xiaoyu Pu, ‘After unipolarity: China’s visions of international order in an era of US decline’, International Security, 36(1), pp 41–72. 5 See, for example, A Magen, T Risse & M McFaul (eds), Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law: American and European Strategies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 6 The term ‘rising democracies’ refers to emerging powers under democratic rule. The term is used by, among others, T Piccone, ‘Do new democracies support democracy?’, Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 2011, p 139. 7 Serfaty, ‘Moving into a post-Western world’. 8 T Carothers & R Young, ‘Looking for help: will rising democracies become international democracy supporters?’, Carnegie Papers: Democracy and the Rule of Law, July 2011, Summary. 9 Democracy promotion can take many different forms, ranging from the enactment of pro-democracy clauses in regional bodies, political party development, electoral monitoring, supporting independent media and journalists, capacity building for state institutions, training for judges, civic group leaders and legislators, and offering development aid if the recipient takes steps towards democratisation to, in rarer cases, imposing sanctions on non-democratic regimes. Rather than merely by governments, democracy promotion has started to be undertaken by specialised government agencies (such as usaid) or nongovernmental organizations such as Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy or the German Stiftungen. 10 M Doyle, ‘Peace, liberty and democracy: realists and liberals contest a legacy’, in M Cox, GJ Ikenberry & T Inoguchi (eds), American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 11 See, for example, J Wolff, ‘Theorie des Demokratischen Friedens—Politik der internationalen Demokratieförderung’, in J Dülffer, G Niedhart (eds), Frieden durch Demokratie? Genese, Wirkung und Kritik eines Deutungsmusters, Essen: Klartext, 2007, pp 227–242. 12 PJ Schraeder, ‘The state of the art in international democracy promotion: results of a joint European–North American research network’, Democratization, 20(2), 2003, pp 21–44. See also GJ Ikenberry, ‘Why export democracy? The “hidden grand strategy” of American foreign policy’, Wilson Quarterly, 23(2), 1999, pp 2. Democracy’s impact on poverty reduction is less clear. Ashutosh Varshney, for example, states: ‘Democracies…have prevented the worst-case scenarios from happening, including prevention of famines, but they have not achieved the best results; and the performance of dictatorships, in comparison, covers the whole range of outcomes: the best, the worst, and the moderate’. Varsheny, ‘Democracy and poverty’, paper prepared for the ‘Conference on World Development’ report, 2000, organised by the UK Department for International Development and the Institute of Development Studies. 13 MW Doyle, ‘Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3), 1983, pp 205–235. 14 G Sørensen, ‘Liberalism of restraint and liberalism of imposition: liberal values and world order in the new millennium’, International Relations, 20(3), pp 251–272. See also H-J Spanger & J Wolff, ‘Universales Ziel—partikulare Wege? Externe Demokratieförderung zwischen einheitlicher Rhetorik und vielfältiger Praxis‘, in A Geis, H Müller & W Wagner (eds), Schattenseiten des Demokratischen Friedens: Zur Kritik einer Theorie liberaler Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Frankfurt: Campus, 2007, pp 261–284. 15 Spanger & Wolff, ‘Universales Ziel—partikulare Wege?’, p 261. 16 PB Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’, Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 2011, p 102. 17 MW Doyle, ‘A few words on Mill, Walzer, and nonintervention’, Ethics & International Affairs, 23(4), 2009, pp 349–369. 18 SP Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. 19 HA Kissinger, A World Restored: Europe After Napoleon, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964. 20 M Cox, GJ Ikenberry & T Inoguchi, ‘Introduction’, in Cox et al, American Democracy Promotion. 21 WI Robinson, ‘Globalization, the world system, and “democracy promotion” in the US’, Foreign Policy/Theory and Society, 25(5), 1996, pp 615–665. 22 Ibid. 23 NS Cole, ‘Hugo Chavez and President Bush’s credibility gap: the struggle against US democracy promotion’, International Political Science Review, 28(4), 2007, pp 493–507. 24 Robinson, ‘Globalization, the world system, and “democracy promotion”’. 25 K Narizny, ‘Anglo-American primacy and the global spread of democracy: an international genealogy’, World Politics, 64(2), 2012, p 345. 26 S Smith, ‘US democracy promotion: critical questions’, in Cox et al, ‘Introduction’. 27 T Carothers, Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2004, p 17. 28 Ibid, p 349. 29 R Travis, ‘The promotion of democracy at the end of the twentieth century: a new polestar for American foreign policy?’, in JM Scott, After the End: Making US Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998, pp 253–254; and Cox et al, ‘Introduction’. 30 The actual quality of democracy is unlikely to be the actual cause here: political deadlock, low voter turnout (in both the USA and Europe), complex gerrymandering, highly controversial campaign finance laws and potentially result-changing errors in the vote counting during presidential elections in the recent past are clear signs that US democracy is in crisis. From an organisational point of view, US democracy may indeed be more advanced, yet it is far from clear whether the sophisticated techniques used by candidates in US elections—advanced polling methods and aggressive ways to raise money—are proof of a better democracy. 31 Carothers, Critical Mission, p 17. 32 Carothers points out that democracy promotion remains remarkably understudied by academics. Ibid, p 3. See also M McFaul, ‘Democracy promotion as a world value’, Washington Quarterly, 28(1), Winter 2004-5, pp 147–163. On the other hand, Schatz argues that international actors have an influence on regime transformation. E Schatz, ‘Access by accident: legitimacy claims and democracy promotion in authoritarian Central Asia’, International Political Science Review, 27(3), 2006, pp 263–284. 33 J Wolff & I Wurm, ‘Towards a theory of external democracy promotion: a proposal for theoretical classification’, Security Dialogue, 42(1), 2011, pp 77–96. 34 F Fukuyama & M McFaul, ‘Should democracy be promoted or demoted?’, Washington Quarterly, 31(1), 2007, pp 23–45. 35 T Carothers, ‘The end of the transition paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 2002, pp 5–21. 36 S Brown, ‘Foreign aid and democracy promotion: lessons from Africa’, European Journal of Development Research, 17(2), 2005, pp 179–198. 37 S Heydemann, ‘Tunisia and the future of democracy promotion in the Arab world’, Foreign Policy, 24 January 2011. 38 Thomas Carothers admits that one of the principal problems of democracy promotion is that ‘most people on the receiving end have an instinctive and wholly understandable suspicion about anyone who comes to their country claiming to be sincerely dedicated to helping build democracy there’. Carothers, Critical Mission, p 9. 39 WI Robinson, ‘Pushing polyarchy: the US–Cuba case and the Third World’, Third World Quarterly, 16(4), 1995, pp 643–659. The author makes a similar point in Robinson, ‘Globalization, the world system, and “democracy promotion”’. 40 In the early 1990s, for example, India was rated by Freedom House as only ‘partly free’, questioning its democratic credentials. See L Diamond, ‘Promoting democracy’, Foreign Policy, 87, 1992, pp 25–46. 41 T Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p 91. 42 Ibid, p 98. 43 K Kumar, Postconflict Elections, Democratization and International Assistance, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998. 44 Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad, p 91. 45 Carothers, Critical Mission, p 11. 46 R Schweller, ‘Emerging powers in an age of disorder’, p 293. 47 C Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, Contexto Internacional (Rio de Janeiro), 24(2), 2002, p 397. 48 Brazilian Constitution, Title 1, Article 4, number 2, at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm, accessed 1 November 2012. 49 Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, p 397. 50 Ibid, p 404. 51 M Spektor, ‘Intervenções no Brasil’, Folha de São Paulo, March 2012. 52 S Burges & J Daudelin, ‘Brazil: how realists defend democracy’, in T Legler, SF Lean & DS Boniface (eds), Promoting Democracy in the Americas, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, p 3. 53 T Carothers, ‘Think again: democracy’, Foreign Policy, 107, 1997, pp 11–18. See also JL Pabis, ‘O compromisso brasileiro com a promoção da democracia’, RI, September 2012; and A Valenzuela, ‘Paraguay: the coup that didn’t happen’, Journal of Democracy, 8(1), 1997, 43–55. 54 Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, p 408. 55 Ibid, p 413. 56 The norm of democratic solidarity postulates that the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it. See Representative Democracy, ‘Resolution adopted at the fifth plenary session’, held on 5 June 1991. 57 Burges & Daudelin, ‘Brazil’, p 1. 58 Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, p 415. 59 FH Cardoso, A Arte da Política—A História que Vivi, São Paulo: Editora Civilização Brasileira, 2006, p 636. 60 Burges & Daudelin, ‘Brazil’, p 8. 61 Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, p 422. 62 Burges & Daudelin, ‘Brazil’. See also Santiso, ‘Promoção e proteção da democracia na política externa brasileira’, p 400. 63 A Sanches Daltro de Carvalho & R de Melo Rosa, ‘O Brasil e a não-indiferença à crise haitiana: solidariedade ou retórica do discurso?’, Universitas Relações Internacionais (Brasília), 9(1), 2011, pp 487–509. 64 ‘oas members balk at US intervention plan’, cnn International, 7 June 2005. 65 Carothers, Critical Mission, p 15. Others have argued quite the opposite, charging that Brazil did in fact help legitimise the ouster of a democratically elected government, yet most admit that the case falls into a grey area. See, for example, Burges & Daudelin, ‘Brazil’, p 8. 66 T Carothers & R Young, ‘Looking for help’, p 6. 67 UN Report of the Secretary General, ‘Support by the United Nations system of the efforts of governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies’, New York, 2007. 68 undp, ‘Guinea-Bissau and Brazil’s Electoral Supreme Court signed electoral memorandum’, 11 July 2011, at http://www.uniogbis.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=9919&ctl=Details&mid=12838&ItemID=11650&language=en-US, accessed 1 November 2012. 69 UN, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on developments in Guinea-Bissau and on the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in that country’, S/2012/554/, 17 July 2012, at http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/GB%20S2012%20554.pdf, accessed 1 November 2012. 70 E de Lucena, ‘Foi golpe o que aconteceu em Paraguai, diz alto representante do Mercosul’, Folha de São Paulo, 29 June 2012, at http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/1112252-foi-golpe-o-que-ocorreu-no-paraguai-diz-alto-representante-do-mercosul.shtml, accessed 1 November 2012. 71 Burges & Daudelin, ‘Brazil’. 72 S Burges, ‘Consensual hegemony: theorizing Brazilian foreign policy after the Cold War’, International Relations, 22, 2008, p 65. 73 Piccone, ‘Do new democracies support democracy?’, p 140. 74 See, for example, M Spektor, ‘Silêncios’, Folha de São Paulo, October 3, 2012. 75 M Spektor, ‘O regionalismo do Brasil’, in B Sorj & S Fausto (eds), Brasil e América do Sul: Olhos Cruzados, São Paulo: ifhc/Centro Edelweiss/Fundação Konrad Adenauer, 2011, p 144. 76 Ibid, p 145. 77 S Romero, ‘Brazil’s long shadow vexes some neighbors’, New York Times, 4 November 2011, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/world/americas/brazils-rapidly-expanding-influence-worries-neighbors.html, accessed 1 November 2012. 78 O Stuenkel, Strategic Threats Surrounding Brazil, International Reports, Berlin Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 30 September 2010. 79 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’. 80 S Mallavaparu, ‘Democracy promotion circa 2010: an Indian perspective’, Contemporary Politics, 16(1), 2010, p 49. 81 This sentiment is not only limited to India. See, for example, Carothers & Young, ‘Looking for help’. 82 Mallavaparu, ‘Democracy promotion circa 2010’, p 53. 83 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’, p 100. 84 R Guha, India after Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, New Delhi: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 85 Mallavaparu, ‘Democracy promotion circa 2010’, p 49. 86 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’, p 100. 87 J Faust & C Wagner, India: A New Partner in Democracy Promotion?, German Development Institute Briefing Paper 3-2010, p 3. 88 Carothers & Young,’ Looking for help’, p 8. 89 Ibid, Introduction. 90 RC Mohan, ‘India’s outdated Myanmar policy: time for a change’, rsis Commentaries, 103, 2007, 2007, p 1. 91 RC Mohan, ‘Balancing interests and values: India’s struggle with democracy promotion’, Washington Quarterly, 30(3), 2007, pp 99–115. 92 Ibid. 93 S Mallavaparu, ‘Democracy promotion circa 2010’, p 53. Indeed, India is the second largest contributor to the Fund. See Carothers & Young, ‘Looking for help’, p 8. 94 D Twining, ‘India’s relations with Iran and Myanmar: “rogue state” or responsible stakeholder?’, India Review journal of democracy, 22(4)2008, pp 97–109. 95 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy?’, p 98. 96 Carothers & Young, ‘Looking for help’, Introduction. 97 For an interesting case study of US democracy promotion in Venezuela, see Cole, ‘Hugo Chavez and President Bush’s credibility gap’. 98 McFaul, ‘Democracy promotion as a world value’. 99 Diamond, ‘Promoting democracy’. 100 Cox et al, ‘Introduction’, p 2. 101 Carothers & Young, ‘Looking for help’, p 6. 102 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’. 103 Ibid. 104 Carothers, Critical Mission, p 17. 105 As Carothers points out, ‘it is telling that the oldest and perhaps most widely recognised European organizations significantly engaged in democracy aid—the German Stiftungen or political foundations—consider themselves to be development organizations, not democracy-promotion organizations’. T Carothers, ‘Democracy assistance: political vs developmental?’, Journal of Democracy, 20(1), 2009, pp 5–19. 106 Schatz, ‘Access by accident’. 107 White House Fact Sheet, ‘United States and India announce partnership on open government’, at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/us-india_open_government_partnership.pdf, accessed November 1 2012, in Carothers & Young, ‘Looking for help’, p 8. 108 O Stuenkel, ‘Why Brazil matters’, Times of India, 1 September 2010, at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-09-01/edit-page/28229782_1_president-luiz-inacio-lula-first-brazilian-president-brazilian-politics#ixzz1145GSdPo, accessed 1 November 2012. 109 Mehta, ‘Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India’.