Coercive Democratization: Lessons for the Future of Iraq? 5 th Conference on the Middle East Instituto de Relations Internacional Buenos Aires, Argentina 10 Noviembre 2004 James M. Quirk, Ph.D. Loyola College Baltimore, Maryland USA

My questions for you –what from democratization theory applies to Iraq? –why is 1990s Russia ignored? –what from Iraq changes democratization theory? –how do these answers contribute to improving U.S. and international policies toward Iraq? to improving Iraq’s own policies?

Four items to review –traditional standards of democratization theory –the “post-war democratization” subset of democ. theory –lessons from previous occupations and nation-building? –lessons from Germany, Japan - and Russia?

Traditional standards of democratization theory (1) –O’Donnell and Schmitter Latin America 1970s Moderate pace, moderate goals Uncertainty “non-linear, uncertain and reversible”

Traditional standards of democratization theory (2) –Linz and Stepan 1970s to early 1990s “degree of state-ness” “prior regime type” political reform before economic reform parliamentary better than presidential

Traditional standards of democratization theory (3) –Diamond and Plattner 1990s post-communism Continuity of elites Civil society difficulty of the political and economic tasks Lack of consensus on “how to do it” “reverse waves” – Huntington “electoral democracy” vs. “liberal democracy”

Postwar democratization –Nancy Bermeo, Princeton Univ. Half of democracies since 1945 (21 of 42 “free”, or 37 of 73 “electoral”) were formed after a war Need to raise the cost of violent competition Need to lower the cost of electoral competition

Lessons from previous occupations and nation-building? (1) –Pei and Kasper, Carnegie Endowment, cases in 20 th century 4 successful: Germany, Japan, Panama, Grenada Seven key factors Iraq is negative or questionable for each factor

Lessons from previous occupations and nation-building? (2) –Robert Orr, et al., CSIS, cases: Japan, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq Security; governance and participation; social and economic well-being; justice and reconciliation Planning must be local and well in advance; action must be local and sufficiently funded

Lessons from previous occupations and nation-building? (3) –James Dobbins et al., RAND, cases: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan Most important: level of commitment - time, personnel, money. Security must precede reform Accountability for past injustices Concern: Political, ethnic, sectarian fragmentation Concern: Potentially disruptive neighbors

Lessons from Germany, Japan - and Russia? (1) No U.S. occupation of Russia Large, industrial, educated nations Goals: transformation of adversary and integration into international community Tasks: military, political, economic Motives: realism and idealism

Lessons from Germany, Japan - and Russia? (2) –Factors: tasks and activities eliminate military threat(s) political and military purges new constitution new political institutions constitutional limits on military international institutions: political, economic, security “re-education” macroeconomic stabilization economic democratization

Lessons from Germany, Japan - and Russia? (3) –Dynamics: short-run and long-run conditions Capable, visionary leadership Coordinated, comprehensive plan Institutional quality Visible, tangible benefits Policy review…and “learning”

Lessons from Germany, Japan – and Russia? (3) –Learning By occupying and occupied countries Honest, critical policy review Changed international and domestic conditions Elites/government Private sector Direct – training, exchanges, etc. Generational Germany and Japan: “reverse course” 2005 Iraq: ???

–With many thanks to Pedro Brieger, Sandra De Rose, Diana Schaub, Joshua Shanholtzer, Maria Soloeta, Joan B. Urban, Univ. del Salvador, DEMO-IRI and Univ. Nacional de La Plata, and Loyola College. –Paper and presentation online at