As recently affirmed in President Bush’s Second Inaugural address, the transformation of foreign regimes into open, multiparty democracies has become a cornerstone of contemporary American foreign policy. Democratization aims to create an open civil society, corruption-free governance, and a fair and competitive electoral process. Although the intrinsic value of democracy meets near-universal acceptance, no single strategy prevails for promoting it, especially in the developing world, where it is most needed yet most absent in the twenty-first century.
In the 1990’s, many political theorists examined the “third wave” of democratization – the abrupt series of transitions from authoritarianism to democracy in countries from Spain to South Africa – and constructed models for successful transitions. The influential theories affected the way in which the American government supports democratic development in general (as opposed to special cases, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, that are represent areas of particular geostrategic importance). Older ideas, such as Lipset’s economic program, were revived, while new theories promulgated by Thomas Carothers, Robert Putnam, Marina Ottaway and Samuel Huntington, which discussed particular political preconditions and the role of the global hegemony, came into prominence. These unified models that attempt to elucidate a critical factor or stage have gained a prominent role in literature and classes in the field. However, none of these theories has become dominant in Washington, leading to uncertainty over the necessary characteristics of a democracy and the specific procedures for democracy promotion. As a result, American democracy policy has been rather fragmented, with agencies working on a country-by-country basis to solve local short-term issues. Unfortunately, this approach has turned the focus away from peripheral nations towards those of greater strategic importance, allowing many to slide back into corruption and authoritarianism. However, the United States has enjoyed some success with its democracy promotion programs, particularly in recent years following the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, respectively. Perhaps this new trend towards brief transitions might herald a new paradigm in democratization theory?
The republics of Central Asia represent good comparative case studies in American democratization. Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia and Tajikistan share a common cultural heritage of primarily steppe nomadism and a historical experience of being the crossroads of many external civilizations . They all became Soviet satellites in the early 1920’s, falling under the characteristic political system of metropolitan capital and peripheral collective farms. In 1991, they became independent, emerging from behind the Iron Curtain with similar political and economic institutions.
The circumstances that make the Central Asian republics good case studies, however, also make them difficult objects of democracy promotion programs. The countries remain quite traditional, with clan-based connections remaining strong and agriculture being the dominant way of life. Russian influence remains strong through networks of former Communist party officials, contributing to corruption. Despite attempts to liberalize their economies, the countries remain greatly impoverished. The multiplicity of challenges to the prospect of democracy means that these countries will prove extremely useful in identifying the factors critical to democratization.
The Central Asia Democracy Project is written by Alan Cordova.
