Week 2 PPOL 650 DB

Chapter 3 Human Rights

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS–BASED ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE MADE MONITORING HUMAN RIGHTS A GLOBAL ISSUE. The United Nations is headquartered in New York City.

Learning Objectives

1. 3.1Review the expansion of and the commitment to the human rights agenda

2. 3.2Evaluate the milestones that led to the current concerns around human rights

3. 3.3Evaluate some of the philosophical controversies over human rights

4. 3.4Recognize global, regional, national, and local institutions and rules designed to protect human rights across the globe

5. 3.5Report the efforts made globally in bringing violators of human rights to justice

6. 3.6Relate the need for stricter laws to protect women’s human rights across the globe.

7. 3.7Recognize the need to protect the human rights of the disabled

8. 3.8Distinguish between the Western and the Islamic beliefs on individual and community rights

9. 3.9Review the balancing act that needs to be played while fighting terrorism and protecting human rights

10. 3.10Report the controversy around issuing death penalty as punishment

When Muammar Qaddafi used military force to suppress people demonstrating in Libya for a transition to democracy, there was a general consensus that there was a global responsibility to protect civilians. However, when Bashar Assad used fighter jets, tanks, barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and a wide range of brutal methods, including torture, to crush the popular uprising against his rule in Syria, the world did not respond forcefully to protect civilians. The basic reason given for allowing Syria to descend into brutality and chaos was that it was difficult to separate Syrians favoring human rights from those who embraced terrorism. Although cultural values differ significantly from one society to another, our common humanity has equipped us with many shared ideas about how human beings should treat each other. Aspects of globalization, especially communications and migration, reinforce perceptions of a common humanity. In general, there is global agreement that human beings, simply because we exist, are entitled to at least three types of rights. First is  civil rights , which include personal liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and thought; the right to own property; and the right to equal treatment under the law. Second is  political rights , including the right to vote, to voice political opinions, and to participate in the political process. Third is  social rights , including the right to be secure from violence and other physical danger, the right to a decent standard of living, and the right to health care and education. Societies differ in terms of which rights they emphasize. Four types of human rights claims that dominate global politics are

1. The abuse of individual rights by governments

2. Demands for autonomy or independence by various groups

3. Demands for equality and privacy by groups with unconventional lifestyles

4. Claims by governments to economic growth and protection from other nations and nonstate actors 1

We will examine historical and philosophical foundations undergirding the development of human rights. Economic and political sanctions are often used to achieve compliance with human rights commitments. In extreme cases, countries support humanitarian intervention to terminate violations of human rights. One of the most significant developments is the emphasis on women’s human rights. In this chapter, we will discuss rape as a weapon of war. We will also examine the treatment of people with disabilities in relation to human rights. The chapter concludes with a case study on homosexuals and human rights.

3.1: Globalization and Human Rights

1. 3.1 Review the expansion of and the commitment to the human rights agenda

The modern state provided increased security, but it also often became a cold instrument for systematically abusing human rights. In fact, it was due to violence against Jews, Gypsies, gays and lesbians, Communists, religious groups, and others in Nazi Germany—which culminated in the  Holocaust —that human rights became so prominent in global affairs. The current wave of globalization has undoubtedly enhanced the observance of human rights. Telecommunications, trade, migration, travel, the weakening of national boundaries, the decline of  Westphalian  sovereignty, and growing interdependence have strengthened a commitment to human rights. Information is now relayed instantaneously, which helps limit governments’ ability to engage in secrecy and brutality. Because their interests are intertwined with those of leading global actors, countries must consider the costs and benefits of decisions concerning their treatment of citizens.

The rise of the United States to global power and its competition with the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds of people around the world marked a turning point in the struggle for human rights. This period of globalization radically transformed the perception that domestic affairs could be automatically separated from international politics. A deeper awareness of the indivisibility of humanity and of our problems weakened the idea that governments are essentially free to treat their citizens as they wish. America’s self-definition as a redeemer nation and a positive force made human rights a central global issue. Several other factors contributed to the expansion of and commitment to the human rights agenda:

1. The creation of global institutions to protect human rights.

2. A growing acceptance of the interdependence and indivisibility of rights. Violations of rights in one country have implications for people in other countries.

3. An emphasis on promoting democracy. The idea that democracy is essential to peaceful international relations became a central part of U.S. foreign policy.

4. The view that respect for human rights facilitated market-based economic development.

5. The effectiveness of nonstate actors.

3.1.1: Nongovernmental Organizations and Human Rights

Human rights organizations directly challenged the assumption that sovereignty allows governments to abuse internationally recognized human rights. Partly due to frustrations with other governments’ bureaucratic approaches and often counterproductive measures to protect human rights, transnational groups now take direct action to prevent violations of basic rights. Amnesty International, one of the best-known human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), was founded in London in 1961 by a group of writers and lawyers. It publishes reports on human rights problems in countries worldwide. It also encourages its global membership to participate in letter-writing campaigns to seek the release of  prisoners of conscience ; that is, individuals who are imprisoned because governments disapprove of their political, religious, social, or other beliefs.

3.1.2: Global Companies and Human Rights

Human rights activists are increasingly pressuring global companies to make the promotion and observation of human rights a centerpiece of their corporate strategy. Google’s operations in China and its willingness to cooperate with the government raised questions about links between business and respect for human rights. Many students and activists around the world have made issues such as child labor and sweatshops integral components of human rights debates. Now we are seeing greater emphasis placed on  corporate social responsibility , which includes safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. Companies are expected to secure human rights in countries where governments routinely violate them. To some extent, the companies’ new role reflects the growing power of nonstate actors vis-à-vis nation-states. The most powerful companies with global recognition are also the most vulnerable to pressure from human rights NGOs and the global media. Many companies believe that supporting human rights is good for business. Increasingly, global companies are regarded as powerful instruments in the pursuit of human rights.

How much companies observe and promote human rights depends to some extent on their strategies and what they produce. Corporations that pursue a  market-building strategy  are distinguished from those that adopt a  cost-minimizing strategy . Market-building companies are less likely to abuse human rights than are cost-minimizing firms, which are more short-term oriented and more vulnerable to the pressures of globalization to increase profits at the expense of employees’ human rights. Market-building strategies involve making significant investments that are unlikely to produce immediate profits. Equally important, companies pursuing such strategies tend to have a greater commitment to the people and the country in which they operate.

3.2: Development of Human Rights

1. 3.2 Evaluate the milestones that led to the current concerns around human rights

Greek philosophers known as  Stoics  developed the idea that rights enjoyed by Greeks were  universal rights , freedoms that humans everywhere were entitled to simply because humans exist. These rights emanated from a law that was higher and more permanent than civil law—a universal law that was equated with the laws of gods. These laws were natural laws. Greek philosophy was adopted by the Romans. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius were some of the leading Roman Stoics.  Cicero  (106–43 bce), the most prominent lawyer and philosopher of the Roman Empire, wrote that “true law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.” 2

3.2.1: Social Contract Theories and Human Rights

A major step toward widespread acceptance and practice of natural rights was the significant recognition by England’s kings, barons, and others that citizens were entitled to exercise basic freedoms without interference from their leaders and that such leaders’ powers were limited by law and a sense of justice and fairness. The signing of the  Magna Carta  in 1215 was followed by England’s King Edward III’s acceptance in 1354 of the concept of  due process of law , which means that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a fair trial based on fair procedures and rules. Another important step toward consolidating human rights was the decision of King Charles I of England, in his Petition of Rights in 1628, to guarantee the right of  habeas corpus ; that is, the right of a person to be brought before a judge or a court to determine whether he or she should be imprisoned. Restrictions on governments emerged from various historical experiences but more directly from social contract theories. John Locke, an English philosopher, argued in his  Second Treatise on Government  (1690) that the state of nature was governed by natural law. People were relatively secure and free and could acquire property. From Locke’s perspective, the social contract between citizens and government protected these natural rights. Nowhere are Locke’s ideas expressed more forcefully than in the American Declaration of Independence.

Another advocate of the  social contract  was the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. However, Rousseau ended up supporting a social contract that subordinates individual freedoms to the tyranny of the majority. His philosophy justified the government’s absolute power over citizens. 3  Immanuel Kant developed the idea that human rights are directly linked to an inviolable obligation that we have to ourselves and to others. Kant believed that these obligations are universal and binding on all of us no matter where we live, thereby underscoring the concept of the indivisibility of humanity and universal nature of human rights. The most profound of these obligations is the categorical imperative, that is, the absolute obligation that each of us should always treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. 4

3.2.2: Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and Marxism

Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill were among those who developed the theory of  utilitarianism , directly challenging the idea that human beings have natural rights. The utilitarians, led by Jeremy Bentham, believed that individuals determine what is good for them and what they want. Conversely, they avoid the things that cause them pain. In his  Principles of Morals and Legislation  (1789), Bentham used his training as an Oxford-educated lawyer to develop a scientific analysis of morals and legislation. Through the careful balancing of individual interests, individual rights arise and are protected.

But John Stuart Mill questioned major assumptions of utilitarianism. He stressed that the government, representing the majority, can brutally suppress the rights of individuals. This fear of the tyranny of the majority is what motivated Jefferson and others to insist on the inclusion of the  Bill of Rights  in the U.S. Constitution to protect individuals who disagree with the majority. Mill articulated his philosophy in  On Liberty  (1859). He argued that one could justify interfering with an individual’s liberty only to prevent that person from harming others, an assumption that must be proven by government authorities.

Another challenge to prevailing perspectives on human rights came from socialist philosophers such as Saint Simon and Karl Marx. Marx believed that the history of society is a history of class struggle. Marx and Saint Simon argued that traditional human rights were largely irrelevant to the majority who lived in poverty. They advocated that governments should develop policies that give people economic and social rights.

3.2.3: Legal Positivism and Human Rights

Closely related to utilitarianism are the positivistic theories and conservatism. Some conservatives, such as Edmund Burke, strongly opposed natural rights theories. Strongly influenced by the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution, Burke believed that individuals derived whatever rights they have from tradition and concrete laws, not from abstract philosophical theories of natural laws. 5  What distinguished the  legal positivists  from the utilitarians was the extent to which the former insisted on the absolute supremacy of laws and courts in determining rights. After World War I, the legal positivists became more extremist, arguing that law was what courts upheld and that justice was the correct enforcement of the law. Yet those bound to honor specific laws had to have given their consent.

3.2.4: Globalization of Human Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Concerns about human rights occurred largely within the context of domestic politics. An overriding emphasis on state sovereignty, which included a preoccupation with independence and control over citizens’ lives, prevented broader applications of human rights philosophies from emerging. But increasing globalization—especially European colonization of the Americas and the enslavement of Africans and others—engendered greater global attention to human rights issues that transcended national boundaries. The horrors of slavery shocked people in Europe and the Americas and led to an antislavery campaign in the nineteenth century. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, seven years after the United States had ceased importing enslaved Africans as required by the U.S. Constitution, leading countries generally supported abolishing the slave trade. The First Anti-Slavery Convention was held in London in 1840 by the  Anti-Slavery Society , the oldest global human rights NGO. Wars also helped globalize human rights. Horrified by the death and suffering of soldiers at the battle of Solferino in Italy in 1859, Jean Henry Dunant, a Swiss citizen, decided to publicize what he saw and to “humanize” war. These efforts resulted in the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863, which was followed by the approval of the First Geneva Convention in 1864. The convention was designed to humanize war by making rules for the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers and sailors, prisoners of war, and medical personnel. World War I led to the creation of the League of Nations in 1919, which made protecting inhabitants of dependent territories and trafficking children and women international human rights issues. The covenant of the League of Nations also made the protection and treatment of workers an international human rights concern.

Nazi Germany’s brutal march across Europe and the rise of the United States as the leading global power under the leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt combined to give the impetus to make human rights global. America’s self-perception as a nation with a universal message facilitated this development. Addressing Congress in January 1941, President Roosevelt committed the United States to securing  four freedoms  for the world: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from economic hardship, and freedom from fear. Achieving these freedoms became the centerpiece of the Atlantic Declaration made by President Roosevelt and Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941. The allies met in Washington, D.C., under the auspices of the American Law Institute to draft a declaration or bill of international human rights. 6  These developments laid the foundation for including human rights in the charter of the United Nations (UN) when it was founded in 1945 in San Francisco. The UN charter provided for the formation of the Human Rights Commission, with the major responsibility for drafting global human rights standards. The final result of these efforts was the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)  in 1948. Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role in this accomplishment. She was largely responsible for promoting the use of the term human rights instead of the traditional emphasis on the rights of man, which actually meant just that. It is also important to point out that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention), a direct response to the Holocaust, was adopted by the UN General Assembly the day before it adopted the UDHR. Although the world was united in its determination to promote human rights, differences between the United States and the Soviet Union later led to the adoption in 1966 of two separate international covenants: the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , which stressed  negative rights  and was favored by the United States, and the  International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) , which focused on positive rights and was favored by the Soviet Union.

The UDHR helped unleash global demands for national self-determination by stating that all peoples have this right. Defining “a people” would become more complex than imagined. Countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean succeeded in getting the UN General Assembly to adopt the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965. The global human rights agenda expanded to include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1981), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), the Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1991), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1991), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), and the UN Resolution on Sexual Orientation (2010).

3.3: Philosophical Controversies Over Human Rights

1. 3.3 Evaluate some of the philosophical controversies over human rights

The question on justice and torture in Saudi Arabia raises a fundamental philosophical controversy over human rights, one that persists and grows as societies feel increasingly threatened by the realities of cultural globalization. Other such controversies involve (1) the relationship between individuals and the communities in which they live, (2) the relationship between rights and obligations, (3) the prioritizing of rights and responsibilities, and (4) the absolute or conditional quality of various human rights.

3.3.1: Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism

As we have seen, Greek and Roman Stoics articulated the view that people have natural rights no matter where they live. But even in societies that stress universal human rights, cultural factors often complicate these theories. The United States, for example, simultaneously embraced natural rights and slavery. In other words, countries modify their support of universal rights by practicing  cultural relativism . Often, leaders and ordinary citizens do not recognize their own biases in this regard. Proponents of cultural relativism believe that rights enjoyed by individuals are determined by each country’s specific cultural and historical experiences. Consequently, what is acceptable behavior in one country could be a violation of human rights in another. Amputating limbs in Saudi Arabia, for example, is viewed in that society as reasonable punishment. Americans reject that punishment as barbaric. On the other hand, America’s support of the death penalty is widely regarded in Europe as barbaric. One version of cultural relativism that was popular when Japan was viewed as a rising superpower was  Confucianism . Some argued that Asians were successful because their cultures embrace the Confucianism values of obedience to authority and intense allegiance to groups and stress collective identities over individual identities. Based on this perspective, the assumption was that universalism was essentially Western and largely incompatible with Asian values.

3.3.2: Individuals and Communities

Complicating discussions of human rights are varying perspectives on the relationship between the individual and the community to which she or he belongs. In societies strongly influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, or Confucianism, individualism is discouraged, and community solidarity is a virtue. The individual is inseparable from the community and enjoys certain benefits from belonging to the community. However, the danger of denying individual rights is that the least powerful in these societies are often brutally suppressed by elites.

3.3.3: Relationship between Rights and Obligations

There is general recognition of a connection between rights and responsibilities or obligations. The basic argument is that rights are simply corresponding obligations. In other words, failing to act to prevent human rights violations is in itself a violation of human rights. This argument assumes that we are capable of doing something either to prevent such violations or to mitigate their severity. The idea that we are responsible for what happens to others goes back to the idea that we have a moral responsibility for both acts of omission and acts of commission.

3.3.4: Prioritizing Human Rights

As American and British troops entered Baghdad in April 2003, many Americans, British, and Iraqis celebrated the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the idea of restoring fundamental freedoms to the Iraqis. Above all, the Iraqis wanted security, food, and clean water. This situation demonstrates the philosophical controversy over prioritizing human rights. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press are often elevated above other concerns in the United States. But many other societies place a much higher priority on satisfying basic economic needs.

3.3.5: Absolutism Versus Consequentialism

Finally, there is the debate about whether we should be willing to compromise on upholding human rights under certain circumstances. Some human rights advocates believe that some rights are absolute; that is, they must never be violated. On the other hand, many of these same advocates would agree that some rights are sometimes limited because exercising them under specific circumstances could endanger the rights of others. The torture of terrorist suspects by the United States and the ongoing debate about their entitlement to basic human rights illustrate how easily human rights violations can be justified in the name of national security.

3.4: Human Rights Regimes

1. 3.4 Recognize global, regional, national, and local institutions and rules designed to protect human rights across the globe

Regimes, as defined in  Chapter 1 , are institutions, rules, and regulations governing particular types of behavior and interactions. Human rights regimes consist of global, regional, national, and local institutions and rules designed to protect human rights, as well as the activities of numerous nonstate human rights organizations and grassroots campaigns. The  UN Human Rights Council  is charged with the responsibility of monitoring human rights globally and for informing the UN Security Council of human rights violations. Previously, we also noted that nations and NGOs, especially after World War I and World War II, succeeded in developing international laws concerning the treatment of national minorities and laborers. These are all components of the global human rights regimes. In this section, we will examine regional human rights regimes, focusing on those in Europe. The main institutions dealing with human rights in Europe are the European Commission for Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the European Court of Justice, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Latin America, Africa, and other regions have essentially adopted Europe’s regime.

Meeting in The Hague in 1948, European representatives laid the foundations for establishing the  Council of Europe  in 1949 to promote democracy and protect human rights. Recent events in Europe propelled the states belonging to the council to sign the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950. This agreement focused on safeguarding civil and political rights. The European Court of Human Rights, created in 1998, is the busiest and most important court of its kind in the world. The European Social Charter, signed in 1961, dealt with economic and social rights. Continuing abuses of human rights in Europe, especially in countries under Soviet domination, influenced German Chancellor Willy Brandt to promote dialogue across ideological divisions. These efforts led to the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 and the creation of the OSCE. The  Helsinki Final Act  provided for the dissemination of the agreement and information about it within countries that originated it. This allowed people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to learn more about human rights initiatives and sparked debate within the Communist countries. Combined internal and external pressure influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to adopt policies conducive to the exercise of both civil and political rights and economic and social rights.

Latin Americans have adopted many features of the European human rights regime but have been less successful in implementing human rights protections. The two most important agreements that established the  Inter-American Regime  are the charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the American Human Rights Convention. Like Europeans, Latin Americans have a human rights commission (the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) and a court (the Inter-American Court of Human Rights).

3.5: Enforcing Human Rights Globally

1. 3.5 Report the efforts made globally in bringing violators of human rights to justice

Although much of the responsibility for enforcing human rights is placed on global institutions, governments, and various NGOs, we as individuals have the ultimate obligation for protecting human rights. Crimes against humanity are generally seen as crimes against all of us, a viewpoint supported by the widespread acceptance of the universal nature of human rights. Yet as individuals, our effectiveness to combat major human rights violations, especially when they occur in distant countries and are carried out by governments, is limited. Consequently, governmental institutions and various organizations that represent individuals are regarded as bearing most of the responsibility for implementing human rights. The extent to which various global actors and individuals are morally obligated to take action depends on three factors: (1) the nature of the relationship with the rights being violated, (2) the degree of effectiveness, and (3) capacity. The nature of the relationship involves issues such as geographic, economic, cultural, or political ties and the depth and duration of those connections. Countries closest to where human rights abuses are taking place are generally expected to act to prevent them, although geographic proximity in an age of globalization is declining in importance. More stress is placed on the degree of effectiveness and capacity. These three factors are integral to the concept of a fair allocation of responsibility. Generally, there are two approaches to implementing human rights. One is the soft systems of implementation, which concentrate primarily on conducting inquiries, exposing human rights violations, empowering the victims, and finding ways to damage the violating state’s reputation. The other is the hard, or coercive, enforcement measures, which include making interventions, setting up international tribunals to prosecute violators, and establishing a permanent international criminal court (ICC).

3.5.1: Sanctions

Sanctions  are punishments or penalties imposed by one state, a group of states, or the global community on another state or group of states to gain compliance with widely accepted global standards of behavior. Because political, economic, and military-strategic considerations affect decisions to impose sanctions, there are usually inconsistencies in how sanctions are imposed. For example, allies often escape sanctions even though their behavior is similar to that of the states being sanctioned. In Darfur and Myanmar (Burma), the economic interests of China, India, and other countries have undermined sanctions. However, sanctions eventually persuaded Myanmar to begin the transition to democracy and to respect basic human rights. Sanctions also influenced Iran, under the leadership of Hassan Rohani, a moderate, to agree not to acquire a nuclear bomb in exchange for lifting sanctions. The complexity of the factors involved in imposing sanctions results in much controversy about using them to force a country to comply with global rules for protecting and promoting human rights. Sanctions can be nonviolent or violent; most are nonviolent. Nonviolent sanctions include economic, diplomatic, political, and cultural measures.  Economic sanctions , the most prevalent, often limit trade, reduce access to international investments and financing, and freeze or confiscate bank deposits of both countries and individuals.  Diplomatic and political sanctions  include actions that aim to embarrass a government and its leaders and reduce its interactions with the global community.  Cultural sanctions  usually try to reduce or stop cultural exchanges, tourism, educational ties, and sporting activities with the target country. Often, sanctions not only fail to change the government’s practices but also turn out to have devastating consequences for innocent civilians. For example, U.S. sanctions against Cuba are widely perceived as being counterproductive as well as harmful to ordinary Cubans.

Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally or multilaterally.  Unilateral sanctions , imposed by one country, were used more often than multilateral sanctions and by several countries before the end of the Cold War. Since 1990, however, the use of  multilateral sanctions  has increased. Increased international cooperation has also encouraged using sanctions as an alternative to military force. At the same time, however, the spread of globalization, which engenders global cooperation, complicates efforts to impose sanctions that are ultimately successful. In an interdependent world, one country’s loss due to sanctions can easily become another country’s loss as well. In other words, sanctions aimed at an enemy often damage a friend.

Although some sanctions have achieved their objectives, such as those applied against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the consensus is that they are usually ineffective. Sanctions fail for several reasons. One reason is that nationalism, present in all countries, spawns a rally-round-the-flag effect. Another is that globalization makes it extremely difficult to effectively isolate a state economically. Third, sanctions may enable repressive governments to use external threats to justify cracking down on domestic opponents and to avoid responsibility for deteriorating economic, health, and social conditions. Fourth, sanctions are costly to countries that impose them. Over time, domestic pressures build to support removing sanctions against the targeted country. Finally, sanctions reduce the availability of resources in the target state, thereby strengthening its power to allocate scarce resources strategically to maintain support for its policies.

3.5.2: Humanitarian Intervention: Responsibility to Protect

When Libyans protested for a transition to democracy, the government used military force to silence their opposition. Led by France, the United Nations imposed a no-fly zone in Libya to protect civilians from both the air force and the army. In extreme cases, when human rights violations shock human conscience,  humanitarian intervention  is regarded as a collective global responsibility. Humanitarian intervention usually involves deploying military forces to prevent or stop a country or group from engaging in gross violations of human rights. 7  It also includes efforts to provide humanitarian relief, to evacuate individuals, and to separate and monitor forces involved in conflicts. Humanitarian interventions fall into two basic categories: consensual and imposed.  Consensual interventions  are agreed to by those in control of a country or region. There is little need for military force. Uniformed forces are involved primarily because they have essential skills and technical capabilities that facilitate rescue operations or the provision of humanitarian supplies.  Imposed interventions  are conducted in a far more hostile environment and often against the wishes of governments or armed groups. Significant military force is required to reduce hostilities, protect civilians, and protect individuals who are delivering humanitarian assistance. But the world’s failure to exercise its responsibility to protect civilians in the Syrian civil war in which Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, bombs, tanks, and torture underscores how military, economic, and regional political realities complicate efforts to protect human rights through humanitarian intervention.

Closely related to humanitarian intervention are peacekeeping and peacemaking operations.  Peacekeeping , provided by  Chapter 6  of the UN charter, occurs within a consensual type of intervention. It involves largely impartial monitors and observers who are unarmed or lightly armed. They are generally required to monitor a separation of forces, verify and monitor troop withdrawals, provide some security, and supervise elections. Force is used as a last resort and only for self-defense.  Peacemaking , on the other hand, involves military forces that are heavily armed, well trained, and prepared to fight. But peacemaking is a far more circumscribed activity compared with standard military operations. Peacemaking occurs in situations in which most of the forces involved are friendly. The basic objective of peacemaking is to reduce the fighting and to restore or create an environment that will enable peacekeeping forces to function effectively. Increasingly, humanitarian interventions involve a mixture of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations.

3.5.3: Responding to Genocide

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention, which defines  genocide  as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Whole populations have been displaced or destroyed as others expanded their control over areas, usually through military force. Such behavior was largely justified in terms of progress and civilization. Often, only a small minority was concerned with the crime of genocide. Convinced that human beings were divided into different races and that some races were inherently superior to others, Europeans expanded their rule to Asia, the Americas, and Africa. In the process, they destroyed many indigenous peoples. The Armenian genocide is widely viewed as the prototype of subsequent genocides in the twentieth century. In 1895, 1909, and 1915, Turkish troops massacred more than a million Armenians and deported others into the Syrian desert, where they died of starvation. 8  The genocide committed by Nazi Germany marked a turning point in the human rights debate, as we have seen. The victorious allies united against such crimes and punished those most directly involved in carrying them out. However, genocide continued and is still going on. For example, between 1975 and 1979, the  Khmer Rouge  in Cambodia killed more than a million people. Another million people died in Rwanda’s genocide. Genocide was part of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Sudan’s actions in Darfur were declared to be genocide. A court in Guatemala found General Efrain Rios Montt, the dictator who presided over Guatemala’s long and brutal civil war, guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. Rios Montt was implicated in the massacre of Ixil villagers. Many countries refrain from declaring atrocities to be genocide partly because the Genocide Convention requires them to act to prevent and punish genocide.

A big step toward holding individuals and governments responsible for gross violations of human rights, including genocide, came at the end of World War I. Britain and France attempted to punish Germany for violating the neutrality of Belgium and Luxembourg by destroying their cities, creating large numbers of refugees, and using poison gas. The Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of War and the Enforcement of Penalties was established at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Its main objective was to prosecute those accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including government leaders. France and Britain strongly supported prosecuting leaders, whereas the United States, Italy, and Japan opposed such trials, principally on the grounds that such actions would violate sovereignty. 9

After World War II, however, the United States changed its position. It played the leading role in setting up the  Nuremberg Tribunal  to prosecute Nazi war crimes and the Tokyo Tribunal to prosecute crimes committed by Japan. Britain had also changed its position: Instead of trying the Nazis, Prime Minister Winston Churchill advocated shooting Nazi war criminals on sight. The United States, under Harry S. Truman’s leadership, persuaded the allies to try the Nazis. The  London Agreement —signed in 1945 by the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union—provided for the creation of an international military tribunal for war criminals. This led to the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which focused on prosecuting high-level German officials. The tribunal held individuals responsible for (1) crimes against peace, which included planning, initiating, and launching a war of aggression; (2)  war crimes , such as murder, abuse, and the destruction of private property and residential areas; and (3)  crimes against humanity , including murder, enslavement, extermination, and deportation. The Genocide Convention, adopted by the UN Geneva Assembly in 1948, was a direct outgrowth of the Nuremberg Tribunal. 10

Similar to Nazi Germany, Japan committed numerous atrocities, including the murder of prisoners, the extermination of civilians, sexual slavery, forced labor, and the use of humans in deadly medical experiments. Following America’s defeat in the Philippines, Japan forced U.S. and Filipino troops to participate in the gruesome Bataan Death March, which resulted in the deaths of around ten thousand Filipino troops and six hundred American troops. Japan also committed crimes against Chinese civilians and soldiers. Even today, many Chinese continue to be suspicious of Japan. They talk about the indiscriminate bombings of Shanghai and other cities. But they are especially emotional when they recall the Rape of Nanking. Japanese soldiers, in October 1937, randomly raped, murdered, and executed Chinese civilians. Estimates of those killed range from forty-two thousand to one hundred thousand. On July 26, 1945, the United States, China, Britain, and the Soviet Union issued the  Potsdam Declaration , stating their decision to prosecute Japanese war criminals. U.S. general Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander for the Allied Powers in Japan, acting under the authority of the United States, established the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Tribunal) to try individuals for crimes against peace. Because the United States was primarily responsible for defeating Japan, Americans unilaterally created the Tokyo Tribunal. 11

The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals set the precedent for prosecuting war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and escalating conflicts among the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims culminated in widespread atrocities. Although all three ethnic groups committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, the dominant Serbs were clearly the most responsible for atrocities that included summary executions, torture, raping women as a weapon of war, mass internments, deportation and displacement of civilians, the inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the indiscriminate shelling of cities and villages. More than seven thousand unarmed Muslim men and boys were systematically executed near the Bosnian town of  Srebrenica  in July 1995. Roughly 740,000 ethnic Albanians were forcibly deported from Kosovo in 1999, and hundreds of Albanians disappeared or were murdered. The UN Security Council responded by establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on May 25, 1993. Based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, the tribunal indicted leading Serbians, including Serbian president  Slobodan Milosevic , Radovan Karadzic, General Ratko Mladic, and Radislav Krstic, for committing war crimes. Similarly, ethnic conflicts, primarily between  Hutu extremists  and Tutsis and moderate Hutus, in 1993 and 1994, stunned the world. Hutus systematically killed and raped. Almost one million people were slaughtered. Genocide in Rwanda led to the creation of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide in Rwanda (Rwanda Tribunal). Ethnic conflicts and the accompanying atrocities have influenced the global community to establish the  ICC  as a permanent institution to prosecute those accused of war crimes and genocide.

3.5.4: The International Criminal Court

On April 11, 2002—more than fifty years after the victorious allies in World War II proposed the creation of a permanent international court to prosecute war criminals and others who engage in gross violations of human rights—the ICC was created. The  International Court of Justice (ICJ) , or World Court, based in The Hague, had been created in 1945 to adjudicate disputes between states. Individuals, however, came before tribunals established on an ad hoc basis to try specific crimes against humanity. Examples are the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals and the tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The globalization of human rights laid the foundation of new thinking about bringing violators of human rights to justice, regardless of where they committed their crimes. The world, less preoccupied by ideological rivalries, turned its attention to issues ordinary people confront daily, including widespread atrocities. Small countries, unable to unilaterally deal with crimes against humanity, stressed the need to create a permanent ICC. At the request of Trinidad and Tobago and several other Caribbean and Latin American countries, the UN General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to return to the work it had started in 1948 to create an ICC. Drawbacks of the country-by-country approach to prosecuting war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity had become increasingly obvious. The two major drawbacks were that (1) it was expensive and time consuming to create new tribunals and (2) securing the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China) was very difficult. More than 160 countries and numerous NGOs, many of which worked closely with smaller states, gathered in Rome in 1998 to create a tribunal with universal jurisdiction. The United States, which had initially signed the agreement under the Clinton administration, later renounced its involvement in creating the court under the Bush administration. 12

Several leaders have been accused by the ICC of violating human rights. As we discuss in  Chapter 14 , Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia was tried by the ICC and died in prison in The Hague. Charles Taylor of Liberia was convicted of crimes against humanity. An arrest warrant was issued for Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan for war crimes in Darfur, and Muammar Qaddafi was accused of violating human rights by deliberately using armed forces to kill civilians who protested for democracy. Three prominent Kenyans were on trial for gross violations of human rights following a disputed election. Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire, was also indicted by the ICC for human rights violations following a dispute about an election. Bosco Ntanganda, accused of massacring civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is at the ICC, where he faces ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Faced with the determination of the ICC to hold them accountable for violating human rights, many African leaders advocate withdrawing from the ICC.

3.6: Women and Human Rights

1. 3.6 Relate the need for stricter laws to protect women’s human rights across the globe.

Images of Brazil, especially of sophisticated cities like Rio de Janeiro, portray women as enjoying equal rights and personal freedoms. But images can be deceptive. It took the Brazilian congress twenty-six years to change the country’s legal code to make women equal to men under the law. The new code, adopted in 2001, outlaws a provision that allowed a husband to annul a marriage if he discovered that his wife was not a virgin when they were married. It also eliminates laws that allowed Brazilian fathers to have unrestricted legal rights to make decisions for their family. Although women are clearly not a monolithic group and do not face the same restrictions across all societies, even where laws support hierarchical patriarchy, the global community embraces the view that most women face violations of their rights. Women’s rights are widely regarded as a category of human rights that deserve special attention.

Human rights for women are directly and strongly influenced by how women perceive themselves and how others perceive them. Perceptions help determine our role in society.  Roles  can be defined as expectations regarding the skills, rights, and responsibilities of individuals. Women’s roles are closely connected to their lower status (compared with men) in virtually all societies.  Status  refers to one’s position in the social, economic, and political hierarchy. The struggle for women’s rights is as old as the struggle for human rights in general. Some people have always advocated equal treatment of men and women. International organizations composed primarily of women led the struggle for suffrage and various social policies. The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to three women from Africa and the Arab world in recognition of their nonviolent activism for women’s rights. In earlier years, women were instrumental in getting protections for women written into the UN charter and in establishing the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Increased emphasis was placed on women’s rights as human rights in the 1970s. The  UN Fund for Women  was created by the UN General Assembly to support women in grassroots organizations. In 1981, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was adopted, thereby reaffirming the view that women’s rights should receive special attention within broader discussions of human rights. The Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995 and the UN Forum of Women in New York in 2000, among others, underscore a growing global consensus on women’s rights. The  Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women  known as UN Women, was created in 2010 to advance women’s rights.

Female genital mutilation , also known as female circumcision, is an extreme form of social control. It is practiced in societies in which women are given a low social status. Even though both men and women are circumcised, female genital mutilation is largely done for the benefit of men. It enables them to control women by inflicting severe pain during sexual intercourse. There are varying degrees of female genital mutilation. It involves the removal of the clitoris in its less severe form and all of the external female genitals in its most severe form. In extreme cases, the genitals are stitched shut, with only a small opening left through which urine and menstrual fluids can pass. These crude and painful operations are usually performed by traditional women practitioners with knives and razors. The main objective is to deprive women of any sexual feelings, thus ensuring chastity. Some women are severely injured, and many bleed to death from the procedure. Chronic urinary tract infections are common, and childbirth is dangerous and painful. Most cases take place in Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and the Sudan. Some Islamic conservatives see it as a religious and cultural practice. Parents and educated girls are increasingly opposed to

INDIA AGAINST RAPE: Bystanders held up a banner and signs after the cremation ceremony of the victim of a rape and murder that triggered an outpouring of grief and anger across India.

female genital mutilation, and some governments, despite opposition from religious and traditional leaders, have banned it.

3.6.1: Sexual Violence: Rape as a Weapon of War

Sexual violence against women has always been an integral part of most societies. Sexual crimes are discussed further in  Chapter 12 . Trafficking in women and children (i.e., buying and selling women and children as sex slaves) was outlawed at the global level by the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others in 1949. Millions of women and children are victims of sexual violence within their own societies, and millions more are trafficked across national borders. The horrific gang rape and murder of a twenty-three-year-old college student in India galvanized women’s rights advocates globally and fueled a wave of protests across India, organized by social media. The rape became a catalyst for radical changes in India. Rape, common in India, is now the subject of national debate. Women in particular are demanding an end to India’s culture of rape.

Sexual violence against women is often built into the legal system as well as the social structure of many countries. Men routinely kill women to protect the family’s honor or their own. In Jordan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other Islamic countries, honor killing, though illegal, is sustained by tradition and religion. Rape is often treated as a crime against the family, an approach that makes the woman who was raped guilty of dishonoring her family. Only in 1996 did Italy change its laws to emphasize that rape is a crime against the woman as opposed to being an offense against her family. Italy also recently abolished laws that enabled a rapist to avoid punishment by agreeing to marry the woman he had raped. Another example of how tradition, religion, and the law perpetuate sexual violence against women is the case of Zafran Bibi in Pakistan. While Zafran’s husband was in prison, his brother raped her repeatedly. When she gave birth to a daughter, she was charged with adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. No charges were brought against her brother-in-law because, under Islamic laws in Pakistan, rape can be proved only with the testimony of four male witnesses. Domestic and global pressure persuaded General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, to force the court to overturn Zafran’s death sentence.

The emergence of rape during conflicts as a direct human rights issue reflects the growth of humanitarian international law as well as the willingness of women, especially victims, to demand justice. For example, Koreans who were used as “comfort women” and subjected to sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II demanded justice from the Japanese government. Sexual enslavement is often used as an instrument of  ethnic cleansing . Sexual violence is used to humiliate and destroy families and communities, to terrorize members of a particular ethnic group, and to force people to flee an area. Serb troops raped more than twenty thousand Muslim women in the former Yugoslavia as part of their ethnic-cleansing campaign. The rape of girls and women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo escalated as that country’s ethnic warfare continued to rage. Rape as a weapon of war continues as violence remains widespread in the Congo. These atrocities helped firmly establish global recognition of rape as a crime against humanity and as a war crime.

3.7: People with Disabilities and Human Rights

1. 3.7 Recognize the need to protect the human rights of the disabled

The recognition and protection of the rights of people with disabilities emanated from global rights campaigns against slavery and the horrors of war. Atrocities of World War II, particularly the cold, deliberate, and systematic murder of people, including people with disabilities, during the Holocaust provided the catalyst for building a global commitment to protecting the human rights of all people. Struggles for civil rights and equality for women generated a broader awareness of other groups that faced severe discrimination. In 1990, the  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. It made changes to integrate them into society, especially providing access to buildings and transportation and providing equal employment and educational opportunities. In 1982, the United Nations created the  World Program of Action  to adopt measures to prevent disability, promote rehabilitation, and achieve equal opportunity for people with disabilities to ensure their participation and integration in society. The  UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , adopted in 2006, further consolidated global awareness of the need to promote and protect the human rights of people with disabilities. In the United States, for example, many individuals with mental illnesses are imprisoned for crimes instead of being placed in mental health care institutions.

Estimates of the number of people with disabilities range from five hundred million to one billion. This is due partly to how  disability  is defined. It is generally defined as any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. This includes people who have a mental illness or are visually impaired, hearing impaired, or wheelchair-bound. People who suffer from lower back pain, asthma, high blood pressure, dyslexia, and autism are also considered disabled. Many of these conditions are temporary. Further complicating the definition of disability is the environment in which one lives. Developed countries enable many people with disabilities to live fairly normal lives. Poor countries generally do not. Consequently, conditions that are an inconvenience in rich countries can be a severe disability in poor ones. A major cause of disability is aging. In some countries, as many as two-thirds of people with disabilities are elderly. They suffer from arthritis, strokes, heart disease, and poor hearing and vision. Other causes include wars, poverty, diseases, unclean environments, inadequate medical care, birth defects, accidents, stress, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health problems.

People with disabilities often face serious challenges gaining access to treatment, employment, and education. This perpetuates poverty among them and limits their integration in societies. There are widespread violations of the human rights of people with disabilities, especially in poor countries. These include sexual assaults and exploitation, beatings, prolonged solitary confinement, overdoses, abandonment, malnutrition, and verbal abuse. As many as 80 percent of people with disabilities in developing countries live in isolated areas where traditional values encourage physical and mental cruelty and where medical and other much needed services are often nonexistent. Disabilities are often regarded as resulting from a curse or immoral behavior and, as such, deserve punishment. Advances in neuroscience that focus on the links between human behavior and human biology, especially problems in the brain, offer hope for more appropriate treatment of people with disabilities in general and mental illnesses in particular.

3.8: Islam and Human Rights

1. 3.8 Distinguish between the Western and the Islamic beliefs on individual and community rights

Negative stereotypes of Muslims and Islam are so prevalent and so profound in most Western societies that even isolated cases of human rights violations are perceived as reflections of a profound inability of Islamic countries to respect human rights. Such images are reinforced by extremists in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, and northern Nigeria, for example. The general lack of a clear separation of religion and government and the dominance of sharia law as the foundation for legal codes in Islamic countries convey the impression of traditional societies that are fossilized, changing very little since the Prophet Muhammad (570–632 CE) founded the religion. But compared with Western societies, Islamic countries are far more repressive and disrespectful of fundamental rights and freedoms, as the recent popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa demonstrate. Saudi Arabia—Muhammad’s birthplace and keeper of Islam’s holiest places, Mecca and Medina, which are sacred to Muslims worldwide—is perhaps the most repressive Islamic society. But Islam’s spread made it a global religion long before the emergence of Western Europe as a dominant power and the subsequent spread of Christianity. Consequently, Islam is diverse and complex, reflecting how very different cultures interpret and practice the religion.

Although Islamic cultures are composed of numerous beliefs and values that promote humanitarianism and respect for some forms of human rights, the religion emphasizes the priority of the Islamic community over the individual. Under the Koran, the ruler and the ruled are equal before God. However, unlike in Britain, for example, where limitations on the monarch were formalized into contracts, such as the Magna Carta, most Islamic countries did not develop formal institutions to restrain leaders and define their powers and responsibilities or to make them accountable to the people. The Western belief that each individual has natural rights stood in sharp contrast to the Islamic belief that the community mattered most and that God’s law did not permit individuals to think for themselves. Justice, in Islam, is derived from obedience to God’s commands as expressed in the Koran. In effect, challenging political authorities is tantamount to challenging the supremacy of religious thinking. Even so, Islam is being challenged by forces within Muslim societies.

3.9: Fighting Terrorism and Protecting Human Rights

1. 3.9 Review the balancing act that needs to be played while fighting terrorism and protecting human rights

Believing that short-term restrictions on civil and political rights are essential to combat terrorism, many governments find themselves on a slippery slope that leads to more durable infringements on democratic freedoms. Britain, for example, responded in the early 1970s to Northern Ireland’s Troubles, as the conflicts between the Protestants and Catholics are called, with increased arrests, essentially arbitrary detentions, increased surveillance capabilities, the creation of a special court to prosecute terrorist suspects, approval of inhumane treatment of prisoners, and excessive military force. Apart from having the unintended consequence of inflaming passions and escalating terrorism, British actions were scrutinized and severely criticized by the global community and within Britain itself. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in several cases, contending that it had violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Following terrorist attacks in London in 2005, Britain adopted several policies that were perceived as threats to human rights.

Alan Dershowitz , a Harvard University law professor and a leading criminal defense lawyer, argues in favor of using nonlethal torture in extreme cases and of judges issuing torture warrants. Dershowitz posed the “ticking bomb” scenario. Imagine that you are a government official and you know that a bomb capable of killing thousands of people is about to be used by terrorists. You are almost certain that a suspect knows where the bomb is and believe that by torturing the suspect, you can extract crucial information to save lives. Would you torture or support the torture of this suspect under these circumstances? Democratic societies routinely condemn other societies that torture people.

In the war against terrorism, the United States significantly altered its policy on human rights abroad. Prisoners taken during the war in Afghanistan were subject to “stress and duress” techniques, including sleep deprivation, physical abuse, hooding, waterboarding (simulated drowning), and being forced to hold awkward positions for long periods of time. Many prisoners held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba were denied access to lawyers and their families. Some prisoners were transferred to countries that are not only strategically located but also known to violate human rights, including Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Widespread abuse of prisoners held at  Abu Ghraib  in Iraq was vividly demonstrated by numerous photographs and videotapes that shocked the world in 2004 and undermined American credibility in promoting human rights, especially in the Islamic world. Some prisoners were killed, were tortured, or suffered from inhumane treatment and degradation. U.S. army dogs were used to abuse Iraqi prisoners.

3.10: The Death Penalty and Human Rights

1. 3.10 Report the controversy around issuing death penalty as punishment

There is a growing consensus that the death penalty violates the most fundamental human right: the right to life. Several countries have outlawed the execution of teenagers. In Yemen, often criticized for violating human rights, the government abolished the death penalty for individuals under eighteen years of age. Only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan allow teenagers to be executed. The United States executed teenagers until 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the practice. After briefly suspending executions in 2007 and early 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated executions by lethal injections in 2008. Japan, which typically executes five or six prisoners each year, has been criticized by Amnesty International and other groups for its secretive and sometimes sudden executions. Many prisoners are told of their execution only moments before they are hanged. Europeans are generally shocked by Americans’ strong endorsement of the death penalty and will not extradite anyone to America if they face the death penalty. European societies abolished the death penalty in the latter half of the twentieth century, mostly in the early 1960s.

PRO-GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS KISSED OUTSIDE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AS THE COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS LEADING TO ITS DECISION TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

Case Study Homosexuals and Human Rights

In December 2010, the United Nations passed a resolution to protect the human rights of homosexuals. Discrimination and violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people constitute a major global issue. The issue of human rights of homosexuals is fundamentally about the right of privacy and the right to be left alone. Think of all the groups of people, social relationships, and behaviors that were not approved by the majority of members of society but are now widely accepted. Roughly eighty countries criminalize consensual homosexual sex. Some countries, including Iran and Nigeria, impose the death sentence for men and up to a hundred lashes for women found guilty of homosexuality. There are numerous cases of extrajudicial executions, kidnappings, rape, torture, and violence. Few governments in the developing world actively prosecute individuals for these violations. Russia bans the adoption of Russian-born children by gay couples and by any couple or single parent in countries with marriage equality. Russian law also allows the arrest of anyone suspected of being gay or pro-gay. They can be detained for fourteen days.

Demographic factors are contributing to global tolerance of homosexuals and the active promotion of their human rights. Younger people, influenced by significant cultural change that characterized the 1960s and 1970s, are generally supportive of diversity, including sexual orientation. Their attitudes and behaviors are reinforced by cultural globalization, especially the Internet, television, movies, and magazines. Easy access to information enables individuals to make independent choices and to challenge conventional cultural values. College, the workplace, sports, and the military, for example, bring people together from diverse backgrounds, which helps create awareness of different lifestyles and foster greater tolerance. Furthermore, many individuals interact with homosexuals as family members, colleagues, friends, and neighbors.

Economic globalization engenders relentless competition for talented individuals, regardless of race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. Companies, like sports teams, that discriminate against individuals, including homosexuals, put themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage and make themselves vulnerable to global pressure and legal action. Furthermore, many leaders of global companies are part of the younger generation that generally rejects all forms of discrimination and values diversity and tolerance. Economic globalization also enables human rights organizations and gay rights groups to exert considerable pressure on governments that abuse human rights. Regional influences also help determine respect for the human rights of homosexuals. In Europe, for example, the European Court of Human Rights found Poland guilty of discrimination against homosexuals. Mexico Argentina, and Brazil have advanced gay and lesbian rights in Latin America.

America took a significant step toward protecting the rights of homosexuals when it repealed its policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation (also known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). Most Americans disagreed with the policy and supported repealing it. In many ways, the struggle for human rights for homosexuals is reminiscent of the struggle to racially integrate the U.S. military. Experiences with successfully integrating the U.S. military after World War II played a pivotal role in the struggle to end racial segregation and discrimination in America. South Africa, which experienced pervasive human rights abuses under its system of rigid segregation and harsh discrimination known as apartheid, is the first country to ban discrimination in its constitution. It is the only country in Africa to allow gay marriage. The cases of the United States and South Africa demonstrate that countries that end discrimination, promote tolerance, and value diversity in relation to a particular group of people generally become more inclusive and respectful of human rights for the rest of their citizens.

Summary

The promotion of universal human rights worldwide has become an increasingly contentious topic. This chapter examined how the progression and promotion of human rights have occurred within the broader political, economic, and cultural aspects of globalization. The concept of human rights has been significantly strengthened in recent history, especially with the growth of multilateral human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and international human rights–based institutions, such as the ICC and the UNCHR. Protecting human rights is no longer seen as an exclusively national issue; rather, it is one of global magnitude and scope. We examined the importance of and distinctions among civil, political, and social rights, as well as the distinction between positive and negative human rights. We also identified factors that have contributed to the expansion of human rights globally, including the globalization of human rights through the creation and strengthening of international institutions, the growing acceptance of interdependence among states, the international proliferation of democracy, the strengthening of human rights through economic development and corporate globalization, and the increasing effectiveness of nonstate actors dedicated to promoting human rights.

Discussion Questions

1. Explain the differences between relativistic and universal human rights. How are they different in their scope and normative assumptions?

2. What are the differences between positive and negative human rights? How are positive and negative human rights related to the ICCPR and the ICESCR?

3. Are sanctions an effective weapon for promoting human rights? If so, how are they effective? If not, how do they hurt human rights?

4. Discuss the issue of human rights for people with disabilities.

5. What is humanitarian intervention? Give examples.

apter 4 Promoting Democracy

DEMOCRACY IS SPREADING AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL AND THERE HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA. Egyptian women protestors entered Cairo’s Tahrir Square, manifesting growing anger at military rule.

Learning Objectives

1. 4.1Recall some of the basic elements that are needed for democracy to flourish

2. 4.2Describe the processes of democratic revolutions in Latin America, Russia, Myanmar, the Middle East and North Africa

3. 4.3Relate Global Governance to Democracy

Democracy everywhere is under pressure and, in some cases, in retreat. The financial crisis severely reduced living standards for the middle classes, dampened hopes of upward mobility, and fueled unprecedented youth unemployment. Simultaneously, many governments implemented austerity programs that eliminated safety nets for the middle class and the poor even as the rich became much richer. Globally, many democratic governments, including that of the United States, are perceived as dysfunctional and self-serving. People lack confidence in the ability of political leaders and institutions to satisfy their demands. This has given rise to disillusionment with democracy. 1  Furthermore, solutions to many problems require global cooperation at a time when democracies are less supportive of globalization.

Communications technologies in general and social media specifically enhance the power of individuals in unprecedented ways that challenge traditional views of democracy. Social media inspired global mass protests by young people, especially the college educated, and the middle classes. Many governments, once elected, believe they have a mandate to rule as they wish and to ignore the opposition and minority rights. For example, Mohamed Morsi, who replaced Hosni Mubarak as Egypt’s president following popular uprisings in 2011, was autocratic, noninclusive, and focused on concentrating power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi’s ineffective leadership and his failure to improve Egypt’s economy led to his overthrow by the military following mass protests.

Globalization has been, and remains, a potent force in the spread of democratic values and practices. The growth of the British Empire was accompanied by the spread of democracy to India, the English-speaking Caribbean, the United States, and Canada. America’s rise as a superpower further consolidated the globalization of democracy, despite its embrace of some repressive regimes during the Cold War. But America’s struggle against the Soviet Union ultimately helped strengthen the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe and in Russia itself. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were few democracies, mostly in Western Europe and North America. There are now more than ninety democracies. Transitions to democracy have occurred around the world: in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Globalization also contributes to weakening the power of centralized government and helps empower citizens by fostering economic prosperity, the acquisition of private property, and the growth of the middle class.

This chapter examines factors that contribute to the growth and maintenance of democratic societies. We will analyze the roles of global civil society and the United States in facilitating and encouraging transitions to democracy, paying special attention to America’s decision to impose democracy through military intervention and by occupying Iraq. Transitions to democracy in Latin America, Russia, and Myanmar are also discussed. We will analyze how globalization is leading to greater global governance and spawning demands for more democracy at the global level. The chapter concludes with a case study of the promise and failure of democratic transitions in the Middle East and North Africa.

4.1: Democracy

1. 4.1 Recall some of the basic elements that are needed for democracy to flourish

A basic definition of  democracy  is rule by the people. Democracy in ancient Greece was a form of  direct self-government , meaning that people voted directly on issues that affected them. Modern democratic societies practice  indirect , or representative, democracy. Citizens elect representatives who vote for them and safeguard their interests.

Two questions that often arise are: Who will govern, and how will the interests of various groups and segments of the population be protected and advanced?

There are two dominant approaches to dealing with these questions. The first emphasizes that the majority of the people decide who will govern and who will benefit. Government by the people is synonymous with majority rule. This approach, practiced globally, is the  majoritarian model  of democracy. The second approach, also widely practiced, embraces the concept of majority rule but attempts to include as many of the people as possible in the decision-making process. The underlying objectives are to enlarge the size of the majority and to obtain widespread support for government policies. This approach is called the  consensus model  of democracy. The consensus model uses a system of  proportional representation  in which both majorities and minorities are represented because seats in elective bodies are determined by the proportion or percentage of votes received. 2  But neither the majoritarian nor the consensus model of democracy guarantees the functioning of  liberal democracy , which is defined by limitations on the power of elected officials, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, protection of private property, freedom of religion, protection of the rights of unpopular minorities, and respect for the rule of law.

Fully developed democracies are characterized by  constitutional liberalism ; that is, a commitment to protecting individuals’ rights, freedoms, and dignity from abuse by the government, institutions, society as a whole, and other individuals. The basis for constitutional liberalism can be found in many societies, the most prominent being the Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1688, the American Declaration of Independence, and the American Constitution. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975—which focused on basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly—represents a continuation of the tradition of constitutional liberalism.

A  constitution  is defined as the fundamental framework or basic law of a country. A constitution assigns powers and responsibilities to government institutions, indicates how decision makers are to be selected, defines the scope of government authority, establishes the nature of the relationship between the people and their government, and has provisions for making political leaders accountable to the people. Central to democratic constitutions is the concept of the  rule of law , which means that no person is above the law and that individuals are treated equally under the law.

Most democratic societies have either a presidential or a parliamentary form of democracy. The United States is the best example of a  presidential democracy . The framers of the U.S. Constitution decided to have a clear separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers and to provide for a system of checks and balances among these distinct branches of government.  Parliamentary democracy  is most strongly associated with Britain. There is no clear separation of powers in the parliamentary system. The prime minister—the chief executive—is an elected member of parliament who is chosen by the majority party in parliament for the leadership position.

4.1.1: Political Participation and Democracy

Political participation entails communicating with elected officials and others in government—expressing viewpoints and demanding certain actions or public policies from the government. Vehicles for political participation include political parties, interest groups, and a free press. Political participation can be either conventional or unconventional.  Conventional participation  includes voting, running for office, assisting with political campaigns, writing to elected officials, writing letters to newspapers about particular issues, and joining an interest group to influence public policies.  Unconventional participation  includes protests, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, and sometimes even acts of violence.

Political parties  are coalitions of interests whose primary goal is to run the government by winning competitive elections. Political parties that are successful usually appeal to a wide range of interests. In some societies, minor parties form coalitions with each other or with a major party to exert greater influence on public policy and to gain more control over the government. The functioning of the  loyal opposition  is important in democratic societies. It means that the party out of power criticizes the ruling majority and suggests alternative programs and policies

An  interest group , or a pressure group, is composed of individuals who share common concerns and who believe that the most effective way to achieve their objectives is to organize and engage in political activities that exert pressure on government decision makers. Interest groups are an essential component of  civil society . Civil society refers to the networks of social relations and institutions that exist and act independently of government institutions. Civil society is generally seen as encompassing the wide range of settings that bring individuals together to exchange ideas; discuss issues; and organize to achieve social, political, and economic objectives. Individuals, groups, and organizations that operate across national boundaries and are linked together by common interests comprise what is referred to as  global civil society .

4.1.2: Women’s Political Participation and Democracy

In the vast majority of political systems, women’s participation in politics is influenced to a large extent by their societies’ perceptions of women, their roles, their status, and levels of economic development in the various countries. Another major barrier to women’s involvement in politics is the widespread perception among both men and women that politics is a male activity. Najma Chowdhury and Barbara J. Nelson refer to this tendency as the “maleness of politics.” They argue that politics has always been closely connected to the traditional fatherly connotation of patriarchy and to fraternalism, which essentially exclude women from political activities and power. Three main arguments are articulated in favor of increased participation of women in the democratic process: (1) equity and democratic justice, (2) representation of women’s interests, and (3) developing and making the maximum use of available human resources. 3  The equity and democratic justice argument rests on the widely accepted view that gender equality and fully including women in political life are prerequisites for democracy. Failure to remove impediments to women’s political participation undermines the legitimacy of democratic governments and erodes public confidence in the democratic process. The representation-of-women’s-interests argument focuses on divergent interests between men and women and the need for women to protect and promote their interests themselves by becoming directly involved in the political system. Finally, the using-all-available-talent argument stresses the pragmatism of allowing women to contribute to all aspects of development, including the growth of democratic institutions and processes. 4

Women’s political participation is increasing in mature democracies as well as in countries that are transitioning to democracy, as illustrated in  Table 4.1 . This development is due primarily to three factors. First, globalization has facilitated the emergence of global networks that heighten women’s political awareness and enable them to mobilize politically at local, national, and global levels. Second, removing barriers to women’s political participation, making deliberate efforts to recruit women into politics, and modifying electoral systems have contributed to women’s inclusion in political life. Finally, the proliferation of women in legislative and executive positions was facilitated by the termination of the Cold War. As traditional security issues receded and domestic challenges became a priority, women effectively articulated their ability to provide leadership. 5  There are many women who lead their countries. They include Angela Merkel of Germany, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, and Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina.

Table 4.1 Women in National Parliaments (Lower or Single House)

Data from “Women in National Parliaments: Situation as of 1st February 2015,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, February 1, 2015.

Rank	Country	Election Year	No. of Seats (Total)	No. of Women	% of Women
1	Rwanda	2013	80	51	63.8
2	Bolivia	2014	130	69	53.1
3	Andorra	2011	28	14	50.0
4	Cuba	2013	612	299	48.9
5	Seychelles	2011	32	14	43.8
6	Sweden	2014	349	152	43.6
7	Senegal	2012	150	64	42.7
8	Finland	2011	200	85	42.5
9	Ecuador	2013	137	57	41.6
10	South Africa	2014	400	166	41.5
43	Australia	2013	150	40	26.7
57	United Kingdom	2010	650	148	22.8
72	United States	2014	434	84	19.4
85	Democratic People’s Republic of Korea	2014	687	112	16.3
85	Republic of Korea	2012	300	49	16.3

WOMEN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ARE INCREASINGLY TAKING ON LEADERSHIP ROLES. When Dilma Rousseff was elected, she became Brazil’s first female president. Rousseff spoke during the January 2015 inauguration ceremony for her second term.

4.1.3: Factors Conducive to Democracy

Culture  (i.e., a set of values, beliefs, and attitudes) is one of the most important prerequisites for the growth of democracy. Cultures that foster democracy are generally characterized by tolerance for divergent viewpoints and practices, compromise, and a willingness to accept the policies voted on by the majority of citizens. Cultural factors help explain the existence of democratic governments in the English-speaking Caribbean, Botswana, India, and Nigeria. Free and fair elections in Nigeria in 2011 marked a consolidation of democratic culture. This transition to democracy was reinforced in 2015 when Nigeria experienced its first instance in which an incumbent president was unseated through the electoral process. Muhammadu Buhari decisively defeated President Goodluck Jonathan by more than 2.5 million votes. The British brought many of their democratic institutions and values with them to their colonies in the Caribbean and implemented a process of decolonization aimed at deliberately preparing the new countries for democratic government. The  Westminster model  (i.e., the British model of government) had been practiced to a limited degree from as early as 1639, when the House of Assembly in Barbados was created, making it the third oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere, preceded only by Bermuda’s legislature and Virginia’s House of Burgesses.

The global or regional environment is widely perceived as playing a crucial role in either facilitating or impeding the growth of democracy. As we will see, the ideological rivalry between the East and the West essentially diminished the opportunities for countries under Soviet domination to embrace democracy. On the other hand, Spain and Portugal became democratic partly because economic, political, and cultural forces in Western Europe undermined support for authoritarian rule in those countries. Changes in the global environment that occurred with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to democratic transitions in Eastern Europe and in Russia itself.

Another major factor that is conducive to democracy is  economic development . As countries achieve greater economic prosperity, integration into global markets, exposure to democratic values, higher literacy rates and increased access to education, increased urbanization, and increased knowledge of other cultures through the global media and tourism, they tend to be more receptive to democracy. Globalization also creates economic insecurity that can motivate unemployed people to seek change. The global financial crisis and the economic recession diminished economic opportunities and played a role in uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa.

Finally, the emergence of a strong  middle class  is perceived as an important factor conducive to the growth of democracy and is closely related to economic development. Increased national wealth generally expands the middle class, which many people believe is essential to the acquisition and maintenance of democratic values. People who are middle class are better educated, have greater economic security, are generally less dependent on governments, tend to participate in politics to protect their interests and to hold governments accountable, are unwilling to allow governments to violate their rights, and have greater confidence in their abilities to govern themselves.

4.1.4: Promoting Democracy

The disintegration of the Soviet Union removed a significant obstacle to creating and strengthening democratic practices globally. Although the United States had formed alliances with undemocratic governments during the Cold War, it became the primary proponent of exporting democracy when that conflict ended. Many Western governments made the promotion of democracy a prerequisite for assistance. Representatives from more than half of the world’s countries met in Warsaw, Poland, to exchange ideas on how to create a global community of democracies. They signed the  Warsaw Declaration , which committed them to promoting democracy in countries lacking it and strengthening democracy in countries that were building it. This development and other actions clearly underscored a growing global consensus that promoting democracy is a global priority. 6

4.1.5: Global Civil Society and the Promotion of Democracy

Global civil society transcends national boundaries. It consists of organizations and individuals who attempt to influence politics both within countries and globally. Economic, cultural, political, educational, technological, and other networks combine to constitute global civil society. These nonstate voluntary associations blur distinctions between domestic and global political activities. Many cooperate with grassroots activists to effectuate democratic change. Increasingly, they are uniting to maximize their impact on governments. For example,  CIVICUS  consists of more than five hundred nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The World Forum for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and Transparency International also bring together many NGOs, a development reflecting the realities of globalization. Global civil society provides basic civic education, organizes and funds political parties and interest groups, assists with writing constitutions, observes and mediates elections, and lends credibility to the process of democratization among other activities. One of the most outspoken proponents of building global civil society and promoting democracy is former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter made strengthening human rights and democracy a central component of America’s foreign policy while he was president. He championed these causes with even greater passion, energy, and commitment after leaving office. He has monitored elections around the world and has served as an interlocutor in international crises involving the United States in, for example, Haiti and North Korea. He was also the first U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (1928) to visit Cuba. In 1982, he founded the  Carter Center , which is affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, to assist in conflict resolution and global development and to promote democracy globally. Carter visited Cuba, and—addressing the nation in Spanish on Cuba’s only television network—he called on Fidel Castro and his government to implement democratic practices. Carter contacted leading Cuban dissidents, such as Oswaldo Payá and Elizardo Sánchez, who launched the  Varela Project . That prodemocracy grassroots campaign collected more than eleven thousand signatures supporting demands for the Cuban National Assembly to hold a referendum on democratic reforms. The Varela Project was named in honor of Felix Varela, a Cuban-born priest who opposed slavery and spent three decades in New York as an advocate of the poor until his death in 1853. Castro’s decision to relinquish power to his brother Raul Castro contributed to some economic and political reforms, including releasing political prisoners, lifting travel restrictions, and encouraging private enterprises. The United States and Cuba restored diplomatic ties in December 2014, thereby paving the way for expanding normal relations. This development could move Cuba to a democracy. There is also more tolerance of critical discussion of Cuba’s economy and political leadership and the many restrictions Cubans resent. Some of these discussions are online. 7

Private foundations, as well as foundations connected to governments, are components of civil society involved in building democracy. Foundations not only control significant financial resources but also have experience working with other parts of civil society. Examples of such foundations are the NED, the Adenauer Foundation, the Ebert Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Seidel Stiftung Foundation.  George Soros  and his foundations played a prominent role in assisting democratization projects in Central Europe. Soros decided to provide resources quickly and to involve people at the local levels in the decision-making process.

MYANMAR OPPOSITION LEADER AUNG SAN SUU KYI, CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRACY PARTY SPOKE DURING THE 2015 CAMPAIGN THAT LED TO HER PARTY’S LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER THE RULING MILITARY REGIME.

4.1.6: The Promotion of Democracy by the United States

Throughout its history, America has vacillated between splendid isolation, believing that it was a beacon on a hill providing light and direction to less fortunate societies, and military intervention to enforce its version of democracy in other countries. From its inception, the United States equated its perception of morality with universal ideals and often mobilized its vast resources to implement its socially constructed reality elsewhere. President  Woodrow Wilson  articulated America’s involvement in World War I as a mission for democracy, as a struggle to secure the rights of individuals and for self-determination in small countries, and as a fight to make the world free. American attempts to promote democracy are inextricably linked to an entrenched  ideology  (i.e., set of beliefs that are often impervious to objective reality and verifiable facts). An ideological approach invariably oversimplifies reality by ignoring or downplaying obvious historical and contemporary contradictory developments.

The ideological polarization and military tensions that characterized the East-West struggle had many direct consequences for democratization. As Steven W. Hook observed, “The actual conduct of U.S. foreign policy reflected a  consequential ethic  that regarded anticommunism as a moral end in itself, one that superseded the means by which the outcome was achieved.” 8  In the Cold War context, the United States believed that preventing the spread of Communism justified both abandoning support for democratic principles and forming alliances with undemocratic governments in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Despite its longstanding commitment to building democracy abroad, the United States continues to confront several obstacles, including the following:

1. Inadequate resources: In most cases, the United States does not allocate enough financial assistance to build the political institutions, economic and social environment, and civil society essential for promoting democracy.

2. Lack of domestic consensus: Although in theory most Americans support promoting democracy in foreign countries, democratization in practice has generally failed to engender a lasting commitment, partly because of an overriding preoccupation with domestic concerns.

3. Conflicting policy objectives: Promoting democracy must often compete with other conflicting national interests.

4. Limitations of the U.S. democratic model: Each society has its own historical, social, and economic realities, which mitigate the usefulness of the American model of democracy.

Pressure on countries to adopt market economies, which included the privatization of state-owned economic activities, was widely regarded as an essential step toward democratization. However, the global financial crisis and economic recession have undermined the American model. The U.S. government enacted the  Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act  in 2001 to promote economic liberalization and privatization as well as democratic reforms. Foreign financial assistance—provided through the NED and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—was used to conduct free and fair elections, draft constitutions, establish independent judicial systems, train police forces, and reduce, if not eliminate, competition in government. Financial assistance was also used to build the forces of civil society.

4.1.7: Imposing Democracy by Force in Iraq

America’s decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 raised many questions about the efficacy of using military force to effectuate democratic change. Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ended, and thousands of Iraqis greeted American troops, while other Iraqis looted government property and destroyed symbols of the old regime, especially the ubiquitous statues of Hussein. Optimism about regime change and spreading democracy not only in Iraq but also throughout the Middle East was bolstered by the easy U.S. military victory, significant Iraqi support for the invasion, and the fact that Iraq contains large oil reserves, is comparatively secular and Westernized, and has a well-educated population.  Table 4.2  shows U.S. efforts to impose democracy.

President Bush appointed  L. Paul Bremer III  as the senior civilian administrator in Iraq. As head of the  Coalition Provisional Authority , Bremer faced the daunting responsibility of stabilizing Iraq, rebuilding the country’s economy and infrastructure, and imposing democracy. Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions complicated the task. It was a major challenge to create political and economic institutions and processes acceptable to the vast majority of Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Kurds, religious fundamentalists and secularists, and men and women.

Despite widespread violence, elections for seats in a national assembly to draft Iraq’s new constitution were held on January 30, 2005. In December 2005, elections were held for the 275 parliamentary seats and to form a government. These elections were viewed by the U.S. government as evidence of Iraq’s transition to democracy and as the beginning of democratic change throughout the Middle East.

4.2: Transitions to Democracy

1. 4.1.7 Describe the processes of democratic revolutions in Latin America, Russia, Myanmar, the Middle East and North Africa

In 1795, the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his book Idea for a Universal History, articulated the view that democratic government was destined to replace all other forms of government. The idea that progress was inevitable extended to beliefs about democracy. Despite history’s cruel lessons, there was general optimism about a future characterized by justice, logic, and peace. But the auspicious beginnings of the twentieth century were destroyed by grave developments that threatened civilization and the survival of the human race. Optimism about democracy in the early 1900s was shattered by the rise of Bolshevism in Russia, militarism in Japan, Nazism in Germany, and Fascism in Italy. 9  The Great Depression further eroded confidence in democracy’s ability to engender prosperity for the majority of citizens. This economic devastation was quickly followed by World War II, in which antidemocratic forces triumphantly trampled democratic societies and forced Britain, the United States, and their allies to make unprecedented sacrifices to protect lives and liberties globally. It is estimated that by 1941 only twelve democracies had survived worldwide. 10

Democratization (i.e., a transition to democracy) is a process of changing from an authoritarian or totalitarian system of government to a democratic government that is widely regarded by the population and the global community as legitimate and permanent. A democratic transition involves the negotiation and acceptance of democratic rules and procedures; the building or restructuring of political, social, and economic institutions; and the channeling of political competition along democratic lines. 11  An essential

Table 4.2 U.S. Efforts to Impose Democracy

Years	Country	Multilateral or Unilateral	Democracy Achieved?
2003–present	Iraq	Multilateral	?
2001–present	Afghanistan	Multilateral	?
1994	Haiti	Multilateral	No
1989	Panama	Unilateral	Yes
1983	Grenada	Multilateral	Yes
1970–1973	Cambodia	Unilateral	No
1965–1973	South Vietnam	Unilateral	No
1965–1966	Dominican Republic	Unilateral	No
1945–1952	Japan	Multilateral	Yes
1944–1949	West Germany	Multilateral	Yes
1944–1947	Italy	Multilateral	Yes
1924–1925	Dominican Republic	Unilateral	No
1916–1924	Cuba	Unilateral	No
1917–1922	Haiti	Unilateral	No
1915–1919	Mexico	Unilateral	No
1914	Nicaragua	Unilateral	No
1909–1927	Nicaragua	Unilateral	No
1909	Cuba	Unilateral	No
1906–1909	Honduras	Unilateral	No

component of this transition is deciding on a new constitution that reflects political, religious, cultural, and economic realities within the society and its regional environment.

Democratic transitions usually begin with  liberalization . Liberalization includes implementing changes, such as imposing fewer restrictions on the freedom of the press and speech, recognizing the right of workers to unionize, moving away from arbitrarily arresting citizens, having greater respect for the rule of law, releasing political prisoners, and increasing tolerance for political opposition. Democratization includes liberalization but is a much broader concept. Democratization involves the right of citizens to compete in elections in order to gain control of the government and to determine the public policy agenda. But elections alone are not sufficient to bring about democratization. What is known as the  electoralist fallacy  (i.e., the view that free elections are a sufficient condition for democracy) is found in many societies transitioning to democracy. Even though nondemocratic leaders relinquish direct control of the government, they continue to exercise so much power that the democratically elected government is widely perceived as politically impotent. 12  Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan argue that a democratic transition is complete when there is a widespread agreement on how to elect a government; when the government has the authority to make decisions for the country; and when there is a legal separation of executive, legislature, and judicial powers. 13

There must be a general societal consensus that no alternative to democracy exists before the transition to democracy occurs. 14  Democracies must deliver tangible benefits to demonstrate their superiority over nondemocratic systems. They must improve economic opportunities, maintain order, and provide an enhanced quality of life for their citizens to obtain legitimacy or acceptance by the people. A full transition to democracy is accomplished when basic democratic rights and freedoms are an integral component of life and when the overwhelming majority of the citizens, despite problems in society, believe that democracy is better than its alternatives.

Many military regimes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America implemented  managed transitions  to democracy. These regimes try to control the process of change to protect their own interests, to ensure social stability, and to minimize concessions to those advocating political transformation. In managed transitions, the military often establishes a timetable for the restoration or creation of democratic rule and determines the process of democratic elections. 15  These managed transitions usually occur in response to widespread national unrest and severe economic crises.

Consolidating democracy  is a long-term process that involves behavioral, attitudinal, and institutional transformations. Behaviorally, a democratic regime is consolidated when there is widespread popular acceptance of the idea that governments should not be changed by force. Attitudinally, a democratic regime is consolidated when a strong majority of the population believes that democratic institutions and procedures are most appropriate for their society. Institutionally, a democratic regime is consolidated when society as a whole, including the government, believes that certain laws, procedures, and institutions must be used to govern society. 16  Conditions must exist that are conducive for the development and proper functioning of civil society. Specific arrangements must be made for groups and individuals to compete fairly and openly for political power. Society must respect and uphold the rule of law, and an impartial and independent judiciary must be regarded as the ultimate authority. Finally, there must be an institutionalized economic society or a significant degree of market autonomy and the right of individuals to own property. 17

Waves of democratization have occurred since the eighteenth century and continue today. Samuel P. Huntington defines a wave of democratization as a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that happen within a specific period of time and that outnumber transitions away from democracy. 18  Three distinct waves of democratization can be identified in modern history. The first wave began with the American and French Revolutions and included parts of the British Empire (e.g., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and several small European countries (e.g., Switzerland). The second wave grew out of the retreat of democracy and the rise of Nazism, Fascism, and totalitarianism in Europe and militarism in Japan. When these antidemocratic forces were defeated in World War II, democracy experienced a renewal or rebirth. Allied occupation of West Germany, Austria, Italy, and Japan led to the democratization of these former aggressive states. The third wave began with Portugal in 1974 and lasted until the late 1990s. 19  Because this wave was so expansive, we can subdivide it into three distinct pathways to democracy taken by various countries. The first pathway involved a movement away from military rule toward democracy in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. The second pathway toward democracy is characterized by a movement away from authoritarian regimes governed by a single dominant party. Examples are Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Africa. The third pathway toward democracy began in countries that had been dominated by Communism and a Communist oligarchy. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are the leading examples of this pathway. 20

4.2.1: Latin America

Between 1978 and 1993, fifteen countries in Latin America transitioned to democracy. Several factors contributed to these developments. First, given the historical and cultural relationships between Latin America and Spain and Portugal, the end of the Francisco Franco regime in Spain and the Antonio de Oliveira Salazar regime in Portugal inspired democratic movements in Latin America. Second, economic difficulties, symbolized by the debt crisis, further eroded the legitimacy of nondemocratic governments, many of which justified their rule on the basis of the ability to develop the economy. Third, military conflicts in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, and Argentina undermined dictatorships in those countries. The government in Argentina, for example, was weakened not only by economic problems but also by its defeat in the Falklands (Malvinas) by Britain. Fourth, the inability of governments to deal with the effects of natural disasters in countries such as Nicaragua and Bolivia contributed to their downfall. Fifth, some governments were pressured to democratize by sanctions, imposed primarily by the United States. Sixth, the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe further weakened the credibility of dictatorships globally. Finally, the United States changed its approach to Latin America, becoming more reluctant to support dictators who were allies. These changes reinforced pressures within various Latin American countries for democracy. 21

Chile, traditionally a stable democracy, is an example of a country in which democracy was replaced by authoritarian rule. In 1973,  Salvador Allende , Chile’s first democratically elected Marxist president, was overthrown by General  Augusto Pinochet , with the support of the United States. Pinochet and the military ruled Chile until the restoration of democracy in 1990. Domestic and international pressures, significant economic development under Pinochet, and the expansion of the middle class eventually influenced Pinochet to hold free and fair elections, which he lost. Although Pinochet continued to play an influential role in the government and the military, Chile had returned to its democratic roots. Despite progress toward democracy, many Latin American societies are confronted with numerous problems that weaken the democratic process. For example, violent protests against economic and political conditions in Ecuador forced President Lucio Gutierrez from office. Democracy in Honduras was undermined when President  Manuel Zelaya  was ousted in a coup and replaced by  Roberto Micheletti .

4.2.2: Russia

Emerging as a superpower after World War II, the Soviet Union embarked on an expansionist foreign policy and directly competed with the United States and its allies to promote Communism as the dominant ideology and way of life. Domestically, the  Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)  exercised complete control over the economy, politics, culture, and every aspect of Soviet life. Centrally planned economic activities excluded private enterprise and free markets. The government’s control of the economy impeded the country’s economic development and created many hardships for the population. Competition with the United States forced the Soviet Union to allocate a large proportion of its increasingly scarce resources to clients in the Third World and to military activities. Faced with a widening gap in living standards between themselves and the West, particularly the United States, Soviet citizens began to view global confrontation and the resources it required as undermining their own economic and social security. They began to turn their attention to domestic problems. As Marshall Brement observed, it was difficult to convince the Soviet public that events in distant places were more important than their own basic needs and interests. Only the most conservative ideologues within the leadership failed to grasp that the Soviet system was in crisis and that a radical shake-up was desperately needed. 22

Mikhail Gorbachev , who was selected by the Communist Party in 1985 to lead the Soviet Union, inherited a stagnating economy and a deteriorating social and political system. Mounting Soviet casualties in Afghanistan, which the Soviets had invaded in 1979, further demonstrated the seriousness of the challenges confronting the Soviet Union. Gorbachev equated Soviet involvement in Afghanistan with America’s failure in Vietnam and decided to stanch the “bleeding wound” by withdrawing Soviet forces from Afghanistan. These problems influenced Gorbachev to adopt radical economic reforms and political liberalization in an effort to strengthen the Soviet Union. His program of  perestroika  (i.e., restructuring of the Soviet economy) challenged the idea of a centrally planned economy and advocated implementing a more open economy that stressed greater local autonomy, economic incentives, and market forces. Another reform was the program of  glasnost  (i.e., openness), which challenged the Communist Party’s assumption that it had a monopoly on truth. Instead, Gorbachev strongly supported more freedom of speech and freedom of the press, believing that truth emerges through the exchange of ideas, discussions, and debates. Finally, Gorbachev advocated a program of  demokratizatsiya  (i.e., democratization), a central component of which would be respect for the rule of law and the free and open election of government officials.

The Soviet Union disintegrated as the various republics declared their independence from Russia and Communism itself fell. Hard-liners were replaced by reformers, the military and the KGB (secret police) were reformed, and many Communist Party activities were abolished. When supporters of the old regime attempted to overthrow Gorbachev in 1991, Russians demonstrated against them in Moscow, helping to guarantee the failure of the coup. Although Gorbachev resigned as president in December 1991 when the Soviet Union was officially disbanded, he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for both his domestic and foreign policy reforms.

Boris Yeltsin , the former Communist Party chief in Moscow, was elected to replace Gorbachev in Russia’s first free presidential election. Opposition to change continued to frustrate efforts by Yeltsin to reform Russia. Yeltsin responded by disbanding the parliament, which was dominated by Communist conservatives who opposed change. His decision to schedule new elections and to create a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, to be approved by the voters, prompted an armed revolt against the government, which was suppressed by the army. In 1995, Russia held its first fully constitutional parliamentary elections since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Yeltsin was re-elected president in 1996. 23  Despite ongoing problems with transitioning to democracy, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, was appointed by Yeltsin to be his prime minister and acting president in January 2000; he was elected president later that year. During his inauguration, Putin held a red, leather-bound copy of the Russian Constitution and took an oath to “respect and guard the human and civil rights” of Russia. This event marked the first democratic transfer of executive power in Russia’s 1,100-year history. 24

Despite significant steps toward democracy, Russia remains at a crossroads, often leaning more toward authoritarianism than democracy.

4.2.3: Myanmar

Myanmar’s (formerly Burma) transition to democracy, which began in 2011, is a major development in Asia and globally. The military seized power in 1962, renamed the country Myanmar, and established one of the world’s most repressive and brutal regimes. The United States and Western Europe imposed wide-ranging sanctions on Myanmar to pressure the government to restore democracy. Economic, political, and strategic considerations eventually combined to influence Myanmar and the United States to negotiate compromises that led to unexpected changes. Unlike transitions to democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, which were ignited by popular uprisings, the authoritarian regime in Myanmar initiated reforms without direct and immediate pressure from the people. The military intended to manage the democratic transition.

Foundations for Myanmar’s democratic transition were laid by massive uprisings for democracy in 1988 that brought Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), to national political prominence. Similar to the Tunisian uprising in 2011, which began following the self-immolation of a street vendor, the 1988 protests in Myanmar started after the death of a student in a tea shop. The ruthlessness and ineptitude of the security forces fueled antigovernment protests led by students. 25  The military government was pressured into holding elections in 1990, which the NLD won. But the government disregarded the elections, repressed the democratic movement, and placed Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. America responded with sanctions against the regime. Protests, including the Saffron revolution of 2007 that was led by Buddhist monks, were brutally repressed. At the same time, the military could not ignore Myanmar’s abject poverty in the world’s fastest growing region. Nor could it disregard China’s power and assertiveness. America was also concerned about the shifting balance of power in Asia.

Popular uprisings in 2011 were potent warnings to dictators everywhere that they were vulnerable. Responding to changing global realities, Than Shwe, Myanmar’s leader, selected Thein Sein to be president. Thein Sein was expected to implement disciplined democracy, which meant that the military would essentially remain in control. Events undermined this strategy. America and Europe would lift sanctions, and Aung San Suu Kyi would oppose any continuation of military rule.

Thein Sein freed Suu Kyi and implemented significant democratic reforms, including lifting restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, releasing political prisoners, allowing exiles to return, and liberalizing the economy. These changes facilitated U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s visit to Myanmar, the restoration of diplomatic relations, and the easing of sanctions. The most important reason for the shift was America’s concern about a rising China and Myanmar’s fear of China’s economic dominance. Most significant was an election in late 2015 in which the NLD won parliament seats in a landslide victory over the military-led regime.

4.2.4: Islam and Democracy in the Middle East

Muslims are obviously not a monolithic group, just as Christians and Jews are not monolithic. Muslims are conservative, radical, moderate, authoritarian, and democratic. Countries in which Islam is practiced have their own particular cultural practices and beliefs that differentiate them from each other and moderate religious influences on political life. Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is not the same as Saudi Arabia.

Democratic revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa challenge misperceptions about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy. Just as there are democratic values in Christian thought, there are democratic values in Islamic thought. As Graham E. Fuller put it, “Democratic values are latent in Islamic thought if one wants to look for them.” 26  The interpretation of the Christian holy book, the Bible, is often arbitrary and subject to debate. The Prophet  Muhammad  (570–632 CE), the founder of Islam, called for  shura  (i.e., consultation between the ruler and the ruled), which, as we discussed earlier, is the essence of democracy. The concept of limited government, a cornerstone of democracy, is central to Islam. Both the rulers and the ruled are, according to Islamic teachings on the state, subject to God’s law. This means that not even the most powerful leaders are above the law. But unlike Christianity, which stresses that we should give to “Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” Islam makes no distinction between the secular and the sacred or between state and mosque. Despite difficulties inherent in using the  Koran  as the foundation of laws for Muslims, the authoritarian governments in the Middle East are less a product of strict adherence to Islamic teachings than they are creations of modernization and the universal human struggle for power.

Instead of viewing Islam as the primary obstacle to democratization, many citizens in the Middle East perceive U.S. policies that support authoritarian regimes as the most serious impediment to democracy. 27  People in the Middle East routinely demonstrate against fundamentalist Islamic regimes and authoritarian governments and for democracy. In Iran, for example, students were instrumental in getting  Mohammad Khatami , a moderate who advocated democratic changes, elected president. But powerful conservative clerics and their supporters prevented him from carrying out meaningful reforms. Many Iranian students have spearheaded protests against religious leaders. They want the same freedoms that they know exist in the West because of their access to television, the Internet, and other aspects of globalization. Iranians joined the wave of political dissent that spread across the Middle East. Hardships created by sanctions against Iran and a general revolt against conservatives led to the election of President Hassan Rohani, a moderate who supports more freedom and human rights.

4.3: Global Governance and Democracy

1. 4.3 Relate global governance to democracy

Globalization is often viewed as depriving democratically elected governments of their ability to determine public policies or to regulate the consequences of global decisions on the people who elected them. The gap between democracy at the national and global levels is most apparent in the area of  economic globalization . There is a widespread fear, especially within developed societies, that the global economy is undermining democracy by shifting power from elected national governments to faceless and often secretive global bureaucracies. In most cases citizens cannot use their votes to hold global institutions accountable, despite the fact that many global organizations were created and are controlled by nation-states. This loss of power, the relative inability of governments and citizens to influence decisions by global institutions, is generally referred to as a  democratic deficit .

4.3.1: International Regimes

Controversy surrounding the issue of a democratic deficit is a direct outgrowth of the proliferation of international regimes and global institutions as integral components of globalization.  International regimes  are basically institutions governing the behavior or actions of governmental as well as nongovernmental actors that are involved in specific activities. Regimes are characterized by complex interdependence and consist of rules, regulations, norms, and legal agreements that govern the behavior of those belonging to them. Because regimes reflect power in the international system, the dominant actors or groups of actors often shape their organization, its functioning, and its policies.

The proliferation and increasing complexity of international regimes combine to create a global governance system.  Global governance  is defined as “the formal institutions and organizations through which the rules governing world order are made and sustained as well as those organizations and pressure groups—from MNCs, transnational social movements to the plethora of nongovernmental organizations—which pursue goals and objectives that have a bearing on transnational rule and authority systems.” 28  Global governance is based on cooperation as opposed to unilateralism. Coordination of actions occurs through the government as well as NGOs.

At the heart of global governance is the concept of global civil society, discussed earlier in this chapter. Global civil society is defined as a decentralized network of autonomous social institutions that represent citizens and organized interests and engage in cooperative actions to achieve broad goals. Just as the growth of civil society is essential to transitions to and consolidation of democracy within countries, global civil society plays a crucial role in promoting democracy at the global level. Global governance also reflects a growing awareness of the need to supply more global public goods as a consequence of increased globalization. Global public goods are characterized by nonrivalry in consumption and nonexcludability, as well as by the universal benefits they bestow on the majority of humanity. They include global financial stability, environmental protection, basic human security, and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

4.3.2: Making Global Institutions More Democratic

Perceptions of a democratic deficit in global institutions and global governance have stimulated discussions about possible reforms to make the global system more accountable, transparent, and responsible to those affected by it. The global financial crisis strengthened demands for change. The first suggestion for the democratization of global institutions is changing the formulation and implementation of rules and procedures. This requires rethinking how interests are represented at the global level. Citizens could pressure their own governments to send representatives to meetings of global institutions to safeguard their interests. A second suggestion is to make changes in the formal representation in global institutions, especially in relation to developing countries. The way seats and votes are allocated in many global organizations places developing countries at a disadvantage in terms of influence on decision making. The global financial crisis helped increase the power of China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries. A third suggestion is to expand representation in them to include citizens’ representatives, in addition to government representatives and bureaucrats. This means including civil society actors. A fourth suggestion is to increase transparency in global organizations. A final suggestion is to enforce judicial-style accountability. This form of accountability is designed to ensure that organizations act within their powers. Specific actions or decisions are examined, and attention is drawn to violations of operating rules and procedures.

Case Study Democratic Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa

Fundamental political, economic, and cultural changes usually take a long time to accomplish. Most transitions to democracy throughout history have been plagued by serious reversals, upheavals, and violence. Some autocratic governments in the Middle East and North Africa have been replaced, but democratic transitions, which were so promising, have mostly failed. Underlying problems that fueled massive popular uprisings remain obstacles to smooth transitions, and the inability and unwillingness of political leaders to make difficult compromises prevent the building of democracies. In many cases, democratic elections are equated with democracy, and winners often believe that they have a mandate to govern and do not have to consider the views and interests of the opposition and minority groups.

When Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, became Egypt’s first elected president, it was widely expected that he would build coalitions, compromise, include the opposition, and listen to the millions of Egyptians who were instrumental in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak. As law and order disintegrated, murders, kidnappings, and other crimes escalated. Economic conditions deteriorated, and youth unemployment rose. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood excluded the opposition and undermined democracy by ignoring popular demands for freedom and human security. Millions of disillusioned Egyptians participated in massive protests against Morsi and demanded his resignation. On July 3, 2013, General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the military’s highest officer, announced that Morsi had been deposed and the constitution had been suspended. Many Egyptians perceived Morsi’s removal as an essential step to restore democracy. During the military coup, security forces shot and killed more than 800 mostly peaceful protesters. The following year, Sisi was elected president of Egypt.

Transitions to democracy have failed in Libya and Syria. After Muammar Qaddafi was overthrown and killed, Libya disintegrated into tribalism. Violence and terrorism are endemic, and governmental institutions are weak and dysfunctional. Syria is experiencing a brutal civil war that has created more than four million refugees and caused more than 150,000 deaths. There are horrific violations of human rights and conflicts with neighboring countries. Prodemocratic movements have disintegrated, and there has been an escalation in sectarian violence and terrorism.

In sharp contrast to Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen made progress toward building democratic societies. Although Tunisia endured many difficulties, it pursued a peaceful approach to resolving conflicts. Leaders emphasized compromise, inclusion, and respect for basic rights. In 2014, elections in Tunisia consolidated that country’s transition to democracy. Although Yemen maintained a broad-based transition to democracy by promoting dialogue and compromise among representatives of a cross-section of the country’s population, that government was overthrown in 2015. Before its overthrow, Yemen’s government was a key U.S. ally in the war on terror.

Transitions to democracy in Tunisia and Egypt occurred quickly partly because governments in those countries were caught off guard by the unprecedented overwhelming protests. Other governments, watching events in Tunisia and Egypt, decided to use military force to suppress protests. In the case of Bahrain, where the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sent two thousand troops under the banner of the Gulf Cooperation Council (composed of six Sunni monarchies) to crush the largely Shiite uprisings. Bahrain, which is predominantly Shiite, is ruled by the minority Sunnis. What are some underlying factors that influenced transitions to democracy in Tunisia and Egypt? Both countries are integrated into the Western world through historical experiences, geographic proximity, migration, tourism, access to global communications, and economic globalization. Despite oppression, both countries experienced a degree of freedom and openness to the outside world. Higher levels of education, greater equality for women, and the emergence of a large urban middle class helped. Gaps between the veneer of democracy and actual performance created widespread frustration and alienation, especially among young people, which fueled anger and demands for change. Finally, the political elite in both countries was not monolithic. Authoritarian regimes were challenged by opposition groups.

Tunisia, with a long history of political stability, connections to Europe, rising economic prosperity, an economy that is integrated into the global economy, high levels of education and home ownership, and a strong middle class, was governed by the corrupt and oppressive regime led by  Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali  for twenty-three years. The Tunisian government used censorship and provided little opportunity for people to express their grievances. Global communications technologies enabled Tunisians to challenge governmental control. But what really galvanized mass demonstrations was the self-immolation of Muhammad Bouazizi, an unemployed college graduate who sold vegetables from a wheelbarrow to make a living for himself and his family. His unlicensed cart was confiscated by the police, and he was beaten and humiliated.

Popular uprisings spread across Egypt, where government corruption, police brutality, and blatant disregard for democracy were deeply entrenched. With more than 40 percent of the people living on less than $2 a day and income inequality escalating amid increased food insecurity, Egypt was primed for the eruption of spontaneous demonstrations that attracted millions of people. These protests were also triggered when a young Internet user,  Khaled Said , was beaten to death by the police. A Facebook campaign was launched, calling on people to participate in a “day of rage.” Roughly eighty thousand Egyptian Web surfers signed up and pledged to march in the streets and to gather in Tahrir Square in central Cairo to demand political reforms and the end of  Hosni Mubarak’s  regime, which had ruled Egypt for thirty-one years. Mubarak’s

National Democratic Party (NDP) always claimed at least two-thirds of the vote in elections and excluded opposition parties, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Most Egyptians, alienated from the political process, never bothered to vote. Rulers became increasingly isolated from the people, especially the youth, who were less tolerant of the gap between promises and performance. Furthermore, believing in equality and meritocracy, young people resented Mubarak’s grooming of his sons to continue his political dynasty. When the military refused to suppress the demonstrators, Mubarak had no option but to leave office. He and his two sons were arrested and held in detention for questioning regarding government corruption.

Summary

This chapter focused on the spread of democracy at the global level. It showed how politics, economics, and culture are inextricably linked to the promotion of democracy on one hand and are shaped by democracy on the other. Democracy is defined as government that reflects the will of the people. There is much diversity among the different forms of democracy throughout the world, and many divergent paths toward democratization exist. Competitive elections—where various political parties representing various political interests effectively and fairly compete—are vital in such a democratic system. Civil society and global civil society play an important role in the democratization process, as the individuals and groups involved exert pressure on autocratic regimes to initiate democratic reforms. This chapter reviewed the many global waves of democratization. The waves of democratization were split into (1) the American and French Revolutions, (2) World War II and the defeat of Nazism and Fascism, and (3) the explosion of democratization from the 1970s to the 1990s throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Latin America. We focused on democratic transitions in the Middle East, North Africa, and Myanmar (Burma).

Although democracy has not been universally accepted by all leaders throughout all nation-states, the strengthening of global civil society—as well as the rising expectations of those long deprived of democracy—have been driving factors in the growth of democratic developments and accountability in government. Democracy has increasingly become globalized, as many throughout the world continue to fight for universal human rights and for the establishment and consolidation of democratic government. With the success of the various waves of democratization, countries worldwide have been able to demand democratic reforms from their governments.

Discussion Questions

1. How would you define democracy? What are some of the basic elements that are needed for democracy to flourish?

2. Discuss the role of civil society in promoting democracy.

3. Discuss ways in which the United States could better promote democracy throughout the world today.

4. In the context of the National Security Agency’s spying, discuss the problem of balancing national security and protecting individual rights.

5. Compare and contrast democratic transitions in the Middle East and North Africa and the transition to democracy in Myanmar.