Response # 1

After reading last weeks articles on Regimes and Transitions viewing democracy as the dominant world ideology (when referring to regimes) seems much less plausible. Fifty percent of the countries currently transitioning to democracy are seen as Illiberal Democracies, as Fareed Zakaria outlined in his “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Along with Zakaria’s “Illiberal Democracies,” Corothers “Gray Zone” and Livitskey and Way’s “Competitive Authoritarianism” are two similar approaches to understanding these seemingly false democracies. With just fifty percent of nations fully transitioning to democratic regimes, there becomes a large misconception regarding what it means to be a democratic regime. As Zakaria stated, this misconception leads to the greatest thread posed by Illiberal Democracies, which is its ability to enable the discredit of Liberal Democracies.

One of the best ways at understanding this type of transition is best understood by examining the post-Cold War nations, which Levitskey and Way outlined in their “Competitive Authoritarianism.” I find it interesting that most of the post-Cold War regimes transitioning to democracy were externally influenced, which in turn resulted in many non-democratic democracies. With this said, many of these nations were ethnically, religiously, and/or racially divided, however, none of these conditions were true for the nations exerting external influences, largely the United States. Finally, with this knowledge, when comparing the cultures, politics, and ideologies of the United States and Iraq, should we be pessimistic towards assuming that the reconstruction of Iraq, like many other reformed nations in the Middle East, will result as a non-democratic Democracy? Finally, ironically enough, the possible collapse of democracy may actually be the result of its coercive promotion.