民主化支援と国際関係

「民主化」と国際政治・経済

抄録

In this paper, I will examine democratic assistance in the democratization process. First, I will focus on democratization at the national level and then will extend the scope of my argument from national to international level to discuss the relationship between democratization and international relations. In my argument, I will show what has been the democratic assistance from foreign countries (or international organizations) to democratizing countries during the period of “The Third Wave” of democratization. To conclude my argument, I will present the following points to be further considered when we examine the relationship between external actors and democratization.
(1) Who are the actors of democratic assistance?
(2) What are the styles of democratic assistance?
(3) Does democratic assistance deal with the transition phase or the consolidation phase of democratization?
(4) Is democracy really consolidated in the democratizing countries?
(5) Is there any connection between the assisting country and the democratizing country?
(6) Do political institutions really matter for stabilizing democracy?
(7) What is the viability of democracy in democratized countries?
Thus, this paper focuses on the democracy promotion activities in the international relations. Elections in democratic countries legitimatize their political regime. Therefore, if we think of political regimes in democratizing countries in terms of the model of electoral democracy, we will be able to grasp the meaning of the concept of ‘democracy’ better. Elections are the transmission belt whereby people's will is communicated to the smaller number of persons who actually make law. In the model of competitive elitist democracy, elections have a very important role as the tools of democratization.
The transition is the interval between one political regime and another. Transitions are delimited, on the one side, by the launching of the process of dissolution of an authoritarian regime and, on the other, by the installation of some form of democracy, the return to some form of authoritarian rule, or the emergence of a revolutionary alternative. It is characteristic of the transition phase that the rules of the political game are not yet defined. Not only are they in constant flux, but they are usually arduously contested. In the democratization process, then, elections offer contenders an opportunity in which they struggle for power.
Adam Przeworski regards the transition to democracy as the liberalization process of authoritarian regimes and their replacement by democratic forms of political organization. According to Przeworski, any regime needs “legitimacy” and “support, ” or at least “acquiescence” to survive. When a regime loses its legitimacy, it needs to reproduce legitimacy or it will collapse.
What is more important for the stability of any regime is not the existence of legitimacy of this particular system, but the presence or absence of preferable alternative regimes. The legitimacy of authoritarian regimes can be improved over time, while democratic alternative regimes are always regarded as more legitimate. Therefore, if an existing authoritarian regime loses its legitimacy, we can expect that the transition to a democratic regime will be set in motion.
The first stage of the transition process is characterized by rapid disintegration of existing political institutions, the proliferation of various political movements breaking into the political arena, and the establishment of transitory power arrangements. Although democratic elections are conducted, consolidation of democratic political order is only one possible outcome.