- 1
- 2
Second Life
Authoritarian governments have also reacted to the color revolutions by clamping down on the NGOs and international organizations that have assisted civil society. Over the past 18 months Iran has imprisoned four Western scholars, accusing them of trying to foment a "velvet revolution."
Russia has moved the furthest in this direction, requiring Western NGOs to register with the government in order to stay in the country. Vladimir Putin's government placed so many onerous restrictions on election monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that the organization refused to send a large delegation to monitor last Sunday's parliamentary elections (which Putin's party won handily). This did not prevent the body from concluding that the polls "took place in an atmosphere which limited political competition." This week Putin endorsed Gazprom chair Dmitry Medvedev to be Russia's next president. Medvedev responded by stating that if he won he would appoint Putin prime minister.
These tactics have succeeded in part because Iraq has turned democratization into a dirty word. Authoritarian elites can tarnish any democracy movement by connecting it to Bush administration efforts at forced democratization in the Middle East. The costs of Iraq now extend beyond the Bush administration—they have made the work of democracy-minded NGOs all the more difficult.
If there is a silver lining, perhaps it can be found in Venezuela, where Chávez lost the referendum on constitutional reform. Had he won, Chávez would have been able to stand for re-election indefinitely, all the while centralizing his grip on power. Despite Chávez's vast oil revenues, control over most media outlets, and never-ending supply of anti-Americanism, the Venezuelan people rebuffed their democratator's wishes.
The past few years have demonstrated the limits of democracy promotion. Hopefully, Venezuela demonstrates the limits of the autocratic response.
Daniel W. Drezner is an associate professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is the author of “All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes” (Princeton).
© 2007
- 1
- 2


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Distant @ 12/20/2007 12:55:51 PM
Comment: I am sadly reaching the conclusion that there are large segments of the world's populations that are happier living under a dictatorship. America cannot force democracy on any population or group of people. The people themselves must want it.
But they also have to understand that with democracy comes responsibility. Responsibility to put the greater good of the masses over your own personal aggrandizement or wealth accumulation. And that applies to everyone in the democracy, not just the elite or the leadership.
Too many poplulations around the world flirt with democracy, then choose to accept corruption and mismanagement instead of standing up to leaders and demanding accountability.
Posted By: manbearpig @ 12/16/2007 10:37:09 PM
Comment: Why is Russia requiring Western NGOs to register a wrong thing?! Can a Russian NGO operate in the US without registration? For that matter, can a British NGO operate in the US without registration? Why is it that the west assumes it has the moral right to monitor elections in an eastern democracy? Say a group of Eastern monitors want to monitor elections in the US or a Western European country? Would onerous restrictions be put on them? What would have been the reaction here if an eastern bloc wanted to monitor US elections in 2004 because the 2000 elections were perceived to be "rigged"? Putin is a democratically elected head of state, exactly like our President. What gives us the right to term him an autocrat? Just because we don't like him or trust him?
Posted By: jpaol @ 12/16/2007 9:26:15 PM
Comment: Drezner: Can we take this article to mean that you are renouncing your previous support for the the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration?