A Constructivist perspective on EU'S democracy promotion in Turkey

The European Union, as a regional actor and an example of stability and well-being, has embraced a set of principles it has stood for and which constitute its own identity. The diffusion of these values among third countries is one of the objectives of EU’s External Policy. Democracy can be found among the principles that are sought to be exported through comprehensive and complex strategies within different frameworks, such as neighbourhood relations, trade partnerships and the accession process. Focusing on the latter, candidates are object of an intensive process of Europeanisation that operates through different mechanisms like socialisation and conditionality. Turkey, on the other side, has decided to apply for full membership several decades ago and, ever since, it has been pressured to Europeanise, which includes improving its unstable democracy. This case, however, is different from all other previous enlargements; for its special socio-cultural and civilisational features, Turkey constitutes a more complex novelty for the European Union. Therefore, this thesis aims to study the influence of the European Union on the democratisation process of Turkey, focusing on the period ranging between 1999, the year the European Council recognised Turkey’s candidacy status, and 2009 that marks the 10-year period of that condition. It is the intention of this project to assess the impact of the European Union at that level through the study of the democratic evolution of the country and its co-relation with other variables related to the presence or pressure of the EU. As this is a challenging objective, it will require a deep reflection upon central concepts like democracy and democratic consolidation, and a diversified use of methodological techniques, such as statistical analysis and mathematical co-relations, historical analysis, literature review and in-depth interviews. This study will privilege a Constructivist approach, emphasising the social construction of reality and the role of the ideational aspects – identity, perceptions and the broader socio-cultural dimension – in Turkey-EU relations.

American democracy promotion in the changing Middle East: from Bush to Obama

The recent "Arab spring", with its popular uprisings in many Arab countries, has exposed the ambiguity at the heart of American promotion of democracy in the Middle East. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were packaged as democracy promotion, as heralding the beginning of a new phase in the politics of the Middle East when democracy would replace authoritarian regimes. Many of these authoritarian regimes, however, were sustained by US support. The recent popular uprisings threaten to bring democracy without promotion by the US, and threaten to overthrow regimes previously supported by the US and important for US strategy in the region – hence an initial hesitant response by the US to some of the uprisings. This book explores the contradictions in American democracy promotion in the Middle East. It discusses the principles underlying US democracy promotion, and the debates surrounding US policy formation, and examines the application of US democracy promotion in specific cases. It concludes by assessing the likely future patterns of US engagement with democratic reform in the Middle East.

EU democracy promotion in Eastern ENP Countries

The paper finds out that the increased incentive structures under the ENP and the more intense socialization dynamics in which Eastern ENP countries have been brought in since the launch of the ENP are not reflected into their regime patterns. However, on the long run (1991-2010) the EU democracy promotion in the region under consideration appears to be largely consistent. In addition, a content analysis of Progress Reports released by the European Commission on the implementation process of ENP Action Plans (ENPAPs) reveals that most Eastern partners have considered in their reform agendas the democracy-related objectives of these documents and that some have also sought to adopt international democratic instruments as provided for in the ENPAPs. Though the record is far from satisfactory on norm internalization, content analysis of Commission's Reports suggests that one should be cautious while totally sweeping away the EU's democratization role.

A Black Knight in the Eastern Neighbourhood? Russia and EU Democracy Promotion in Armenia and Moldova. EU Diplomacy Paper No. 7, October 2014

Europe’s peace and security are challenged by the events taking place in the Eastern Partnership region. Amid growing tensions between the European Union (EU) and Russia, the fate of countries in the common neighbourhood and their progress towards democracy are increasingly at stake. This paper tries to understand to what extent Russia is undermining EU democracy promotion in the Union’s eastern neighbourhood. By focusing on the cases of Armenia and Moldova, EU democracy promotion is analysed in light of the triangular relationship between the countries under scrutiny, the EU and Russia. It argues that domestic conditions and external pressures, linked through the filter of problems of ‘stateness’, are both crucial and mutually reinforcing for democratisation. The paper shows that Russia can undermine EU democracy promotion to the extent that it strengthens the aversion of domestic political forces to democracy-oriented reforms.

Democracy Promotion and the EU, US Formulas: Photo Opportunities or Potential. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 14 No. 5, May 2014

Why do we think more of the United States (US) than the European Union (EU) in discussing Afghani or Iraqi democratization, and EU more than US when it is East European? Should not democratization be the same? A comparative study asks what democracy has historically meant in the two regions, how democratization has been spelled out, why instruments utilized differ, and democracy within global leadership contexts. Neither treats democracy as a vital interest, but differences abound: (a) While the US shifted from relative bottom-up to top-down democracy, the EU added bottom-up to its top-down approach; (b) the US interprets democracy as the ends of other policy interests, the EU treats it as the means to other goals; and (c) flexible US instruments contrast with rigid EU counterparts. Among the implications: (a) the 4-stage US approach reaches globally wider than EU’s multi-dimensional counterpart, but EU’s regional approach sinks deeper than the US’s; (b) human rights find better EU than US anchors; (c) whereas the US approach makes intergovernmental actions the sine qua non of democratization, EU’s intergovernmental, transnational, and supranational admixture promotes quid pro quo dynamics and incremental growth; and (d) competitive democratization patterns creates lock-ins for both recipient and supplier countries.

U.S. Democracy Promotion from Bush to Obama. EUSpring Working Paper No. 1, April 2015

Throughout the twenty-first century the United States (U.S.) has attempted to balance its traditional national security interests, whilst also seeking to promote the long-term transformation of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) towards democracy based on liberal values. With the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks providing a catalyst for policy change, the U.S. has moved away from its twentieth-century policy of pursuing a regional status quo and instinctively balking at political change. Yet, the U.S. has not abandoned its reliance on autocratic regimes that cooperate on more immediate national security interests such as counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, and the free-flow energy sources into the global market. Rather, U.S. democracy promotion in the MENA has become incremental by design and is characterized by its gradualist and often collaborative nature. U.S. foreign policy in the MENA is, therefore, depicted by a cautious evolutionary stance rather than supporting revolutionary shifts in power.

US Democracy Promotion from Bush to Obama. EUSpring Working Paper No. 1, 15 April 2015

Throughout the twenty-first century the United States (U.S.) has attempted to balance its traditional national security interests, whilst also seeking to promote the long-term transformation of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) towards democracy based on liberal values. With the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks providing a catalyst for policy change, the U.S. has moved away from its twentieth-century policy of pursuing a regional status quo and instinctively balking at political change. Yet, the U.S. has not abandoned its reliance on autocratic regimes that cooperate on more immediate national security interests such as counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, and the free-flow energy sources into the global market. Rather, U.S. democracy promotion in the MENA has become incremental by design and is characterized by its gradualist and often-collaborative nature. U.S. foreign policy in the MENA is, therefore, depicted by a cautious evolutionary stance rather than supporting revolutionary shifts in power.

Democracy promotion and Turkey

The dissertation documented the degree of Turkey's involvement in the promotion of democracy in the Arab Middle East (ME). Initially, I investigated why and under what conditions Turkey promotes democracy in the ME, and then I explained strategies through which Turkey promotes democracy in the region. I applied the neo-classical realist theoretical framework and a mixed methodology in the research, and I provided evidence from two sources: face-to-face interviews with the Turkish and foreign officials and common citizens, and the statistical data from institutions, such as the OECD, Turkish Statistical Institute, and World Bank.^ My research indicates that Turkey promotes democracy through seven channels. These channels are official development assistance (ODA), mentoring, demonstrative effect, normative pressure, conditionality, military power, enlargement, and civil society organizations. Turkey promotes democracy in the ME for three substantial reasons: first, to advance its security and economic interests; second, to improve the political, social, and economic conditions of people living in the region; and third, to create long-term regional stability, crucial for cooperation in economic and security realms.^ I attempted to engage in debates with two distinct, but interrelated fields of comparative politics and international relations. My most important contribution to the field is that I documented Turkey's case of democracy promotion regarding the degree of Turkey's involvement in this endeavor, its strategies, specificities, and effectiveness in the region. I also contribute to the field as I explained the difference between democracy promotion policies of a regional power, such as Turkey, and global powers, such as the US. I further engaged in discussions that illuminate some aspects of the interplay between the identity and strategic interests in states' foreign policy decisions.^

The EU's Promotion of External Democracy: In search of the plot. CEPS Policy Brief No. 281, 13 September 2012

This policy brief illustrates that both the conceptualisation of democracy and the means to achieve it remain vague, and explains why this is problematic. It points out the risks that stem from a lack of clear understanding about how human rights, governance, civil society and socio-economic development relate to democratisation. It concludes that the EU should reflect on the substance of its external democracy promotion policies and conceptualise the relationship between the different elements of democracy promotion cited above and democratisation. While ongoing reforms of international democracy promotion should continue, a wider debate on substance could help identify what the EU should support in the future. The EU should also establish a reflective external democracy promotion policy where the assessment of actions on democratic development becomes systematic and is institutionalised.

Working with China to promote democracy

China represents an uncomfortable thorn in U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world. While some projects have been successful, a large gap exists between the increasing U.S. funding in China and its “limited impact.”  Moreover, U.S. democracy promotion in China has contributed to strategic distrust between China and the United States; Beijing perceives it as a strategic move to destabilize the rise of China and sabotage the Communist Party's leadership. At the same time, China's growing power while maintaining one-party rule and rejecting democratic change generates fear and distrust among many Americans.

The scholarship on U.S. democracy promotion is largely and understandably dominated by U.S. scholars with U.S. perspectives. Chinese officials’ and scholars’ responses and perspectives are, however, often overlooked, particularly by democracy-promotion professionals, and are largely omitted from literature on the subject. This paper attempts to understand how the complex and multilayered U.S. democracy-promotion program in China has contributed to this strategic distrust. It examines China's responses to U.S. democracy promotion and explains the confrontational dynamic between Washington and Beijing. The paper also explores whether and how Beijing and Washington can create mutual trust rather than suspicions. Some skeptics may consider this naïve, but on historical and political grounds it is actually a realistic possibility

Electoral observation: Evidence from Mozambique

Electoral fraud is a common problem in young democracies. Election observers constitute one possible remedy. Yet, quantitative evidence of the exact effects of observers is scarce. Data on the random assignment of observers during Mozambique’s 2009 general elections is used to estimate the impact that observers have on ballot fraud. It is shown that the presence of national observers reduces high levels of turnout and manipulation of ballots. The findings contribute to the understanding of the behavior of politicians and have implications for the implementation of observer missions.

La lucha de la Unión Europea contra el crimen organizado transnacional. Estudio de caso: tráfico ilegal de armas pequeñas y ligeras provenientes de Albania y Kosovo (2001-2005)

En el contexto de la lucha de la Unión Europea contra el crimen organizado transnacional, el tráfico ilegal de armas pequeñas y ligeras proveniente de los grupos criminales albaneses y kosovares, es uno de los delitos a los que la Unión Europea ha tenido que hacer frente. Así pues, esta investigación logró analizar cómo la falta de coordinación de las políticas europeas implementadas para luchar contra el tráfico ilegal de armas pequeñas y ligeras y la corrupción estatal en Albania y Kosovo, fueron los dos factores de mayor influencia para evidenciar el impacto a la efectividad de dichas políticas implementadas. Para esto se debió comprender las dinámicas de los grupos criminales y la influencia de la corrupción en su actuar, y después examinar las políticas implementadas por la Unión Europea y los factores que no permitieron que existiera coordinación entre ellas.

The European Union and global governance:a handbook

The role of the European Union in global politics has been of growing interest over the past decade. The EU is a key player in global institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NATO. It continues to construct an emerging identity and project its values and interests throughout contemporary international relations. The capacity of the EU to both formulate and realise its goals, however, remains contested. Some scholars claim the EU’s `soft power’ attitude rivals that of the USA’s `hard power’ approach to international relations. Others view the EU as insufficiently able to produce a co-ordinated position to project upon global politics. Regardless of the position taken within this debate, the EU’s relationship with its external partners has an increasingly important impact upon economic, political and security concerns on an international level. Trade negotiations, military interventions, democracy promotion, international development and responses to the global economic crisis have all witnessed the EU playing a central role. This has seen the EU become both a major force in contemporary institutions of global governance and a template for supranational governance that might influence other attempts to construct regional and global institutions. This volume brings together a collection of leading EU scholars to provide a state-of-the-art overview covering these and other debates relating to the EU’s role in contemporary global governance. The Handbook is divided into four main sections: Part I: European studies and global governance – provides an overview and critical assessment of the leading theoretical approaches through which the EU’s role in global governance has been addressed within the literature. Part II: Institutions – examines the role played by the key EU institutions in pursuing a role for the EU in contemporary international relations. Part III: Policy and issue areas – explores developments within particular policy sectors, assessing the different impact that the EU has had in different issue areas, including foreign and security policy, environmental policy, common commercial policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, development policy, accession policy, the Neighbourhood Policy and conflict transformation. Part IV: The global multilevel governance complex and the EU – focuses on the relationship between the EU and the institutions, regions and countries with which it forms a global multilevel governance complex, including chapters on the EU’s relationship with the WTO, United Nations, East Asia, Africa and the USA.

Introduction

The role of the European Union in global politics has been of growing interest over the past decade. The EU is a key player in global institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NATO. It continues to construct an emerging identity and project its values and interests throughout contemporary international relations. The capacity of the EU to both formulate and realise its goals, however, remains contested. Some scholars claim the EU’s `soft power’ attitude rivals that of the USA’s `hard power’ approach to international relations. Others view the EU as insufficiently able to produce a co-ordinated position to project upon global politics. Regardless of the position taken within this debate, the EU’s relationship with its external partners has an increasingly important impact upon economic, political and security concerns on an international level. Trade negotiations, military interventions, democracy promotion, international development and responses to the global economic crisis have all witnessed the EU playing a central role. This has seen the EU become both a major force in contemporary institutions of global governance and a template for supranational governance that might influence other attempts to construct regional and global institutions.