Democracy promotion circa 2010: an Indian perspective
TL;DR: The authors examines how and why India, the world's largest democracy, remains sceptical about the idea of promoting its own political order abroad, and compares three prominent schools of thought in international relations (neo-realism, neo-institutionalist liberalism, and social constructivism) are capable of contributing to Indian reticence in democracy promotion.
Abstract: This article examines how and why India, the world's largest democracy, remains sceptical about the idea of promoting its own political order abroad. It first lays down the historical background of India's long abstinence from promoting democracy and describes the country's more recent shift in foreign policies towards greater (though still cautious and selective) support for international democracy promotion. On a conceptual level and as a thought experiment, the article then compares in what ways three prominent schools of thought in international relations (neo-realism, neo-institutionalist liberalism, and social constructivism) are capable of contributing to an explanation of Indian reticence in democracy promotion. While they emphasize different aspects and dimensions of India's hesitance to engage in democracy promotion, all three contribute analytically to such an explanation.
Citations
More filters
Book•
[...]
01 Jan 2000
TL;DR: The seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather, one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deformation as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and de‹ciency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. (Ibn al-Haytham)1
512 citations
[...]
TL;DR: The dominant position established powers have traditionally held in global affairs is slowly eroding as mentioned in this paper and one of the issues profoundly affected by this process will be democracy promotion, an area traditionally dominated by the USA and Europe on both the policy and the academic level.
Abstract: The dominant position established powers have traditionally held in global affairs is slowly eroding. One of the issues profoundly affected by this process will be democracy promotion, an area traditionally dominated by the USA and Europe on both the policy and the academic level. While several rising democracies—such as Brazil and India—may seem, from a Western point of view, to be ideal candidates to assist the USA and Europe in promoting democracy in a ‘post-Western World’, emerging powers like these are reluctant to embrace the idea. What does this mean for the future of democracy promotion once the USA’s and Europe’s international influence declines further?
44 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyzed the substantial role India has played in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005-2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi's traditional policy of noninterference in its neighbours' internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion.
Abstract: According to the theory of ‘democratic peace’, India, as the largest democracy in the world and as South Asia's predominant regional power, should be expected to promote democracy in neighbouring countries. However, New Delhi lacks any kind of official democracy-promotion policy, and its past record on democracy promotion efforts in the region is mixed at best. Against this background, the article analyses the substantial role India has come to play in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005–2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi's traditional policy of non-interference in its neighbours' internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion. However, the analysis shows that India's involvement in Nepal was the product of short-term stability concerns rather than being an indicator of a long-term change in strategy with the intention of becoming an active player in international democracy promotion.
19 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore India's recent engagement with the Burmese socioeconomic landscape, and assess its democratizing impact, arguing that despite an evident discourse shift since cyclone Nargis in 2008, India's development and infrastructure projects remain low-key and peripheral, its education and health assistance marginal and its transnational connections with the emerging Burmies civil society absent.
Abstract: Since the 1990s, India has faced heavy criticism for its realist approach to Burmese affairs. Geopolitical imperatives indeed drove Delhi towards a closer partnership with its military-ruled neighbour. India, however, claims it plays a key role in fostering development in Burma; therefore, consolidating long-term democratization prospects there. This article aims to challenge this view. Using the literature on development and democracy, as well as interviews with Indian policy-makers, it will explore India's recent engagement with the Burmese socioeconomic landscape, and assess its democratizing impact. It argues that, despite an evident discourse shift since cyclone Nargis in 2008, India's development and infrastructure projects remain low-key and peripheral, its education and health assistance marginal and its transnational connections with the emerging Burmese civil society absent. India's own dilemmatic approach combined with Burmese traditional resistance impedes a broader Indian leverage. Unless a m...
16 citations
Cites background from "Democracy promotion circa 2010: an ..."
[...]
[...]
References
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: The debate between realists and liberals has reemerged as an axis of contention in international relations theory as mentioned in this paper, and the debate is more concerned today with the extent to which state action is influenced by "structure" versus "process" and institutions.
Abstract: The debate between realists and liberals has reemerged as an axis of contention in international relations theory.’ Revolving in the past around competing theories of human nature, the debate is more concerned today with the extent to which state action is influenced by ‘structure’ (anarchy and the distribution of power) versus ‘process’ (interaction and learning) and institutions. Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international regimes overcome this logic, and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable, and what is amenable to change?
3,735 citations
"Democracy promotion circa 2010: an ..." refers background in this paper
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
1,796 citations
"Democracy promotion circa 2010: an ..." refers background in this paper
[...]
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy is revisited.
Abstract: Building on a growing literature in international political science, I reexamine the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise “restraint” and “peaceful intentions” in their foreign policy. I look at three distinct theoretical traditions of liberalism, attributable to three theorists: Schumpeter, a democratic capitalist whose explanation of liberal pacifism we often invoke; Machiavelli, a classical republican whose glory is an imperialism we often practice; and Kant, a liberal republican whose theory of internationalism best accounts for what we are. Despite the contradictions of liberal pacifism and liberal imperialism, I find, with Kant and other democratic republicans, that liberalism does leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs. Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful. They are also prone to make war. Liberal states have created a separate peace, as Kant argued they would, and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression, as he feared they might. I conclude by arguing that the differences among liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant's internationalism are not arbitrary. They are rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state.
1,289 citations
"Democracy promotion circa 2010: an ..." refers background in this paper
[...]
[...]
TL;DR: Social constructivism addresses many of the same issues addressed by neo-utilitarianism, though from a different vantage and, therefore, with different effect as discussed by the authors. But it also concerns itself with issues that neo-UTilitarianism treats by assumption, discounts, ignores, or simply cannot apprehend within its characteristic ontology and/or epistemology.
Abstract: Social constructivism in international relations has come into its own during the past decade, not only as a metatheoretical critique of currently dominant neo-utilitarian approaches (neo-realism and neoliberal institutionalism) but increasingly in the form of detailed empirical findings and theoretical insights. Constructivism addresses many of the same issues addressed by neo-utilitarianism, though from a different vantage and, therefore, with different effect. It also concerns itself with issues that neo-utilitarianism treats by assumption, discounts, ignores, or simply cannot apprehend within its characteristic ontology and/or epistemology. The constructivist project has sought to open up the relatively narrow theoretical confines of conventional approaches—by pushing them back to problematize the interests and identities of actors; deeper to incorporate the intersubjective bases of social action and social order; and into the dimensions of space and time to establish international structure as contingent practice, constraining social action but also being (re)created and, therefore, potentially transformed by it.
1,190 citations
"Democracy promotion circa 2010: an ..." refers background in this paper
[...]
Related Papers (5)
[...]
[...]