Page 1 of 26
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND
MILITARY INTERVENTION DECISIONS
Introduction
Democratic principles influencing military intervention decision-making
Between the two, the Democratic decisions affect the military intervention in the decision
making in the following ways. First, it is public opinion since politicians are elected by people
with guidance and aiming to perform the voters’ wants and concerns. In simple language, when
an intervention does not find a firm ground within the public, then it is very likely that it will not
get support in the Congress or similar institutions. However, leaders cannot ignore the short term
sentiments of the public irrespective of the long-term enduring objectives need to be set. Second,
the points of democratic culture such as free flow of information and check on government
decisions influence the intervention policies. Managers would have to justify to the auditors any
actions or decisions made through words, substantiate the facts, or provide statements that would
support the data given; the checks in this case would be interdependent and controlled with the
other branches of the central government. This makes the response slow or firm in the unstable
areas hence not effective in the dynamic environments in the foreign land. In addition, while
utilizing the decision-making through democratic polity and stressing the importance of the
opinion of the majority, people create the slow and complex bureaucratic hierarchy that very
often becomes an obstruction to effective actions toward emerging threats. Third, the regard of
civil liberties outlines the conduct that is expected during warfare. Democracies should not
tolerate the casualties of numerous civilians or long sieges that contradict autonomy. This can
restrain options if one or more of the tactical field scope’s elements decompound it. Finally,
justifications of the interventions, which are identified as humanitarian activities, are placed into
Page 2 of 26
the frames of rights of the democratic states for human rights and international law. Thus, non-
democracies would be expected to intervene in support of their friendly regimes or in order to
expand their spheres of influence no matter the lives of the local populace; on the other hand,
democracies are expected to have a conspicuous moral rationale in terms of saving lives or
protecting vulnerable groups. All military intervention decisions have four principles inserted by
the Core Democratic Values of this thesis; the principles include the respect for democratic
values in providing reasons to the citizen and the human dignity of every person in the planning
of the military intervention.
Tension between humanitarian ideals and national security concerns
The issue of the compromise ratio between umbrella advocates of humanitarian norms of
states’ activity and threats within the contents of national security still becomes one of the crucial
priorities for the governments and politicians. The delivery of supplies and entitlement of
people’s right to be saved and rendering them, the essentials of life, is a noble pursuit. And being
one of the most developed and powerful countries in the world, the United States determines,
alongside with the task of protecting the population of other countries, to provide them support in
case of man-made or natural disasters, epidemics, or war. This issue has to be noted, however,
the participation of private players in national security initiatives can only be extended to a
certain extent and its extent and intensity has to be dictated very selectively by a country’s
strategic and security needs. Such resources are rare and anyhow any government of the world
will defend its people and the country in section. Some of the tension’s current refugee crises
created by conflicts in Syrian and other countries represent these tensions’ examples. However,
people from all over the world for different pictures of civil war and violence that the Syrian
people are currently facing asked wealthy countries to open their doors for refugees. Compare to
Page 3 of 26
accepting refugees it matches with the tradition of the USA as the immigrant country and bearing
the values of the humanitarian country. But, the process needs to have hardcore issues about the
infiltration of the refugees’ streams by the authorized terrorists or criminals, who used the crisis
for their advantage. To minimize this risk, measures for screening and enforcement were strict to
minimize this risk but it was never excluded all together. An increase in refugee admissiveness
moreover, was evidence of domestic political and budgetary preferences over and against other
things. In other words, while there is an instinct of humanity that suggests the admissions should
be wide, the practicalities of public leadership require the best. Similar dynamics are also e. g.
witnessed in discourses on food aid, health or human rights interventions, sending out
peacekeepers and many other things. It shows that regardless of the best intentions, a program
could include aspects that are detrimental to such an eventuality, corruption for instance, if a
program was not well designed. Such complexities are still going to present to the leaders the
dilemma of the moral weight on one side of the scale and the security weight on the other.
Complexities of balancing democratic values with global responsibilities
It is important to understand that democracy and global responsibility are not mutually
exclusive but rather conflicting in nature and presents several challenges. Democracies mean
governance through representatives, freedoms of speech and press, the rule of law and human
rights. However, as the nations of a global neighborhood, democracies are not only entitled to
their rights but also bound to their duties – obligations to abide by the rules of the global village,
to address complex global challenges such as climate change and global health threats, and, in
some cases, to take collective action to prevent humanitarian crises in other countries. The
maintenance or enhancement of the strength of these democratic values may pose certain
challenges when it comes to the interface of the global responsibilities. On the one hand,
Page 4 of 26
American politicians and the American public could be too dependent on foreign powers and this
could erode American values, freedoms or the right of Americans to choose their future. For
instance, waging a war in another country without the approval of the people can be an epitome
of democracy. At the same time, going too far in the direction of the second type poses a threat
to neglecting the international commitments and destabilization of the system, which leaves
democracies with the question of how the balance can be struck between these two goals.
Modern economic relationships with elements such as; economics interdependence, technology,
and globalization entails that what affects one country has an repercussions on others. Hence,
while actions may be taken to isolate a nation, this will always have an adverse effect on the
other states. However, this also means that on the most part the policies that are implemented
with an aim of enhancing welfare of people around the world do not always suit the best interest
of each country. Democratic leaders need to balance these conflicting incentives in a manner that
moves forward both the local and the global, which could mean forming partnerships with
friends and foes alike in what could be new strategic industry partnerships. It may also entail
risks, or a give-and-take from multiple parties – but probably not at the expense of fundamental
national security, or citizens’ welfare. It is only possible by wisely understanding each case, its
importance, and implication through the lens of security, social, economic, etc., before deciding
what policy should be implemented that is equally moderate in exercising democratic power and
efficient in meeting global obligations, which will remain one of the defining tasks in
democracies, even as the nature of the problem is poised to grow increasingly complicated by the
expanding globalization process.
Democratic Norms Shaping Intervention Justifications
Human rights promotion as cornerstone of democratic interventions
Page 5 of 26
Advocacy in human rights as a discourse has elevated itself to the level of the cliché
discourse of democracies within the past few decades of interventionism. It may be mentioned
that after the formation of United Nation and Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 the
concept of central human rights has emerged more concrete. At the same time as this consensus
came into formation, the sources of human rights pressure in other countries began to also be
associated with the concept and political system of democracy and democratic system of
government as the political system that is most appropriate for the protection of the rights of man
and citizen. This combination of human rights and Democracy was a justification to check the
politics since the act of exporting democracy – an activity that would enable the promotion of
certain Human Rights that dictatorial governments were violating. Nevertheless, the experience
of such democratic interventions based on the concerns raised under the aegis of human rights,
again, can at best be described as rather mixed. Although it has been observed that democracy
has been imposed and has been made to succeed in different countries by force and regime
change with positive results it has been noted also that the outcomes usually are not good for
geopolitics. It is imperative that such changes be home grown in the target countries so as to
make such change s sustainable and credible. That change can only be done by insiders and all
those people that attempt to be outsiders and change as well hardly succeed. Nevertheless,
humanitarian reasons that support the call for human rights persist to compel the policy makers
in the major Walden, liberal democracies to lean towards intervention through utilization of
measures such as economic warfare and or direct military attack. However, the political climates
of the target countries and the nature of the fact that, despite globalization, democratic transitions
are indeed unique, in the sense that such changes have to occur organically in target societies
also impose clear limitations on what can be done through externally induced processes. It is not
Page 6 of 26
like there are very conventional policy resolutions that can be implemented and there is always
this ongoing pressure to discharge human rights which will not fade away even if one tries to
look for an excuse to stop trying to transform things and loses.
Rule of law considerations in international military engagements
Whenever as a nation you are contemplating going to war in another country especially
where this is outside the context of United Nations Security Council-mandatory resolution that
provides for the use of force, you are bound to be confronted with legal questions which are
usually anchored on international law and the international order. On the one hand, states always
seek their gains and protect their security as any sovereign state should or can do. However, at
the same time, states also have the responsibility to contribute to the enforcement of common
norms and laws in the given field necessary for the maintenance of the international peace and
order. This dualism becomes the key spot for several debates about the wars and military actions
without the legal provision for such activities. More recently, in the Serbia crisis in the Kosovo
region in 1999, NATO acted in a manner provided for in the Charter but in defiance of the
provision by launching attacks against the Serb forces without the approval of the UN, although
the motivation cited was humanitarian intervention. While it averted ethnic cleansing the motion
has its dark side which is the fact that it undermined the authority of this body that is the Security
Council and thus was negating the authority of existing international law. Besides, one can refer
to the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003, the legal basis for which seem to be
resolutions of the Security Council and the existence of weapons of mass destruction that turned
out later more than an affair. The risks that emerged in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s deposition
regarding whether legal process jettisoned by one state for claimed rule-of-law purpose could
ever be achieved. When evaluating the prospects for international engagement of military troops,
Page 7 of 26
states are faced with the enforcement of short-term security interests and the maintenance of the
rule of law in the long term. Using the way of thinking regarding the concept of an unauthorized
intervention, how would it have impacted the stability of the world and the system put in place to
ensure that there is no repeat of a war? Might it undermine other considerations, for example,’
conventional understandings of commitments to process, say, Security Council authorization?
These questions are not seconded, and should not be excluded from consideration; rather, they
should be given more attention than these rather simple and very much nationally egoistical
notions.
Transparency requirements influencing intervention decision processes globally
Transparency necessities are thus influencing the intervention choice procedures in
diverse nations. Before the countries and international organisations can intervene in a foreign
country and gain public support and acceptances there is always a set of questions that need to be
answered before the intervention is conducted they include; The reason for the intervention, The
legal justification for the intervention, The purpose of the intervention and finally; when and how
will they go? This is why, at least partly, the need for the transparency per se arose, for some of
the controversies that surrounded past interventions that, in one way or another, were initiated
without clear objectives and aims and were open ended. The Iraq War is a fitting example in this
regard where justification and planning, or lack of it, was considered less than adequate as a post
hoc rationalization. The same have been said and heard in relation with the Libyan intervention. I
US led doctrines like the Responsibility to Protect or R2P have endeavored at enunciating
principles concerning action for humanitarian purposes with the like intents as prevention and
setting of measures that would entail action. When interventions are being mentioned now in
organizations such as United Nations or within the domestic politics, there is way more
Page 8 of 26
procedure that is put to defining what is meant by justification, as well as all kinds of terms, prior
to the action taken with the intervention toward creating a public acceptance of the intervention
as fairly justified in moral terms, and as a perfectly correct practice in practical terms. This goes
hand in hand with forecasts that any engagement plan should be channeled with
recommendations on when to demobilize and the objective to be realized in the exercise. For the
matter-of-fact military and foreign affairs personnel, not very fond of large measures of rigidity
in planning, the transparency requirements are the lemons of the country with previous missions
and initiatives that are extremely loose on goals individuation or convincing public utility.
Identifying the right measure of transparency and efficiency in the case of Interventions is still an
issue, especially when the requirement for extra justification is changing and rising and becomes
an element of the global managers’ practice.
Electoral Dynamics and Military Intervention Policies
Voter sentiment's impact on intervention decision timelines
Public opinion in a country always plays a vital role in determining the time and
circumstances under which political heads decide on the use of force and other forms of military
action. When any external event or situation surfaces that may demand a response, such as a
crisis or conflict overseas, the politicians will look at the most recent polls and groups lobbying
to assess the nation’s sentiment. When the voters are either fully against getting engaged or have
lingering doubts about it, the leaders might stall the decisions, try diplomatic approaches or
engage in a very limited way in the hope that the people’s resistance will wear off. At the same
time, the focused action or distressing stories can also make a radical turn toward for or against
actions, pulling policymakers to adapt to the changed voter sentiment. For instance, before the
genocide in Rwanda in 1994, there was hardly any information about the rising tension and
Page 9 of 26
violence and hence the rest of the world spared President Clinton and other leaders in the West
the obligation to intervene more as the situation worsened. But once the genocide started,
gruesome pictures and narratives of Rwanda flooded the international arena, triggering
international condemnation and prompting the governments of the nation-states to question why
they did not act earlier to halt the genocide. This sharply escalating voter sentiment probably
played its part in alerting Western powers to the plight of the Rwandese and permitting
humanitarian relief operations and limited UN peacekeeping forces – but alas, far too late to
prevent most of the massacres. A similar transformation in the public’s lack of concern about
mass killings following news coverage also played a role in convincing NATO to eventually
launch air strikes against Serbian forces to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999. The
current and long, lengthy, and emotionally intense conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have made
numerous voters in the United States and Britain against further military interference in other
countries’ affairs over more than a decade of wars, which might have influenced elected
officials’ attitudes towards the Syrian civil war. Such examples indicate that fluctuations in
voters’ moods concerning foreign emergencies, as reflected by the real-time media information
streams, can exert a strong impact on political choices concerning intervention during the quickly
progressing events overseas as part of rapidly evolving events abroad. Political leaders must take
the public opinion into consideration as one of the considerations when considering, how and
when to respond militarily.
Campaign promises shaping post-election intervention strategies internationally
The promises made by the political candidates when vying for the position of the
presidency often dictate how those who have been elected to the presidency handle diplomacy
once elected. Quite often, candidates promise to make certain decisions or actions in foreign
Page 10 of 26
policies, the use of military power, relations with allies or foes, etc., to attract the voters’
attention and secure their votes. However, when leaders are participating in the election, they
may be inclined to make certain promises which may be challenging to implement once they are
in office due to various constraints in international politics. For instance, the candidates are well
known to promise either a prolongation or a reduction in the military engagements across the
globe based on the said ideology. A more interventionist candidate can speak about an increase
of activities in present hot spots or even military operations in new regions. There are several
challenges that the politicians face as soon as they come to power, including the bureaucratic
system, financial constraints, changes in the society’s attitudes and new perceptions of national
interests. On the same note, those candidates aspiring to scale down military commitments
abroad will also be defused. The friends who anticipate further support for sustained operations
and counter-terrorism campaigns against tenacious terrorist organizations would find it hard to
execute manoeuvres of any sort let alone a full pull out. In either case, there is never a clean
break from the campaign process to the development of policies that are often more complex in
execution than in speech. Balancing campaign arguments on potential adversaries against the
requirements of realist diplomacy also presents difficulties. It is common for candidates to paint
an opponent nation negatively only to find that once in office diplomacy is more beneficial to the
nation than antagonistic approach even though unpopular amongst the voters. On the other hand,
electoral promises of appeasing a certain party, which is an effort to establish cooperation, may
turn into more aggressive actions when previous optimism was unjustified. Another constant
headache for elected leaders is the chasm between the rousing campaign agenda and the complex
geopolitics. However, while electorates may be betrayed, they do not forgive: the Gallup poll
never sleeps; the campaign lore of hope and criticism is thus sustained regarding military
Page 11 of 26
interventions and diplomatic initiatives undertaken on the international plane although once the
election is over, there are practical reversals.
Electoral cycles affecting long-term military commitment sustainability
It is possible to identify such long-term consequences of electoral and political cycles
regarding the sustainability of military operations. Concerning the drawbacks, amongst which
many authors mentioned, there is an issue that politicians priorities and incentives tend to be
linked with election periods, so long term stable policies, which are likely to need sustained
effort for several years, could potentially be threatened if necessary. For example, an
administration might have the backing of its citizens to launch a military intervention;
nonetheless, maintaining such a campaign for 5-10 years is something that requires political will,
which is rather scarce. As a result, the policies can be changed by the new administrations or just
effectively unimplemented since there is no political gain in the current decision. This tends to
undermine the foundation upon which long-term planning that is sometimes necessary to
underpin long and often slow-moving missions that may only pay off after years are built. The
fact that general elections are common in the 4-year term frameworks across the world makes
leaders focus on spending on things that will capture the voter’s attention before the next
election. This may not be good enough, especially for the domestic groups, who want results or a
change of foreign policy within a short time frame, such as having military bases abroad for a
long time. In the long run, the world grows bored of long-distance conflicts, and this exhaustion
is an inherent factor among the legislation and the public. This is why it is easy for
administrations to declare that ‘the mission is accomplished’ or to withdraw, before the
foundations of stability are laid. Where consistent strategies are expectable, innovations may be
caused by new administrations, to be able to introduce a new approach in the field of foreign
Page 12 of 26
policy. This can result in reversing the achieved progress and last but not least lose faith of the
host nation. There should be agreement and strategy beyond the election campaigns, while this
looks desirable to foster sustainable results, it is practically unachievable in today’s democratized
world. Therefore, democracies should not ignore the electoral, short term, accountability but can
build up a more, cross partisan, long term military vision. Another factor of the opposite concept
can be the bicameral committees, the joint military cooperation and advice, the independent
auditing organisations and the multiyear financial plans that can help to decrease the short-term
approaches. The other issue to consider is the strategic vision from leaders that habitually and
insistently advocate and enforce the sustainable and conditions-based drawdowns as opposed to
timelines-based. Free nations have gigantic capital ready to be deployed for quarrelsome
contingencies – but only if they remember their spines, vision, and to decide on the principles
that they shall not abandon come the elections. Dealing with such realities while operating in the
open is a never-ending fight for states that are still inclined toward a permanent and ongoing
military presence.
Separation of Powers in Intervention Decision-Making
Executive-legislative tensions over war powers authorities internationally
Exemplifying the struggle between the two branches of government is the prolonged
conflict in democracies worldwide concerning the authorities related to war powers. In countries
such as the United States of America, there has been a major confrontation on the rightful roles
of the president as the head of the armed forces and the congress, which has a power to declare
and also authorize war and provide funds required in this process. Presidents of both political
affiliations continue to exercise increased presidential autonomy to deploy the military and
partake in hostilities without seeking permission from Congress, thus invoking inherent powers
Page 13 of 26
of the presidency and arguing that flexibility and speed are critical in this context due to the
threats facing America. However, Congress has gradually expressed concern over the broad
definition of presidential war power and the exclusion of the legislative branch in its capacity as
co-owner of the country’s war power. This tension has been evident on decisions to launch drone
attacks and of special operations in different countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Syria among
others. It also encompasses more prolonged military involvement such as the presence of
American soldiers in various Middle Eastern countries after major, Large scale operations such
as those stated earlier. Such discussions have also been observed in other democracies too The
same has also happened in other democracies as well. Traditionally, the war powers in the
United Kingdom have enjoyed a large amount of leeway that has been traditionally afforded to
the prime minister although it has recently rebelled more like in the case of Iraq War. The
presidential system was given more power after the instabilities of the Fourth Republic in the
constitution of 1958 in France however legislative oversight has been growing gradually over the
years. While the German government has been directly involved in decisions to use armed forces
abroad, this has always been preceded by consultation between the chancellor’s office and the
Bundestag. The balance between the executive power and the legislative branch, even to this
date, constitutes a developing concern in democracies. Possible future decades shall see new
security threats arise, for dealing with the conflict of branches over the war authority questions, it
might become even more significant.
Judicial review's role in intervention legality assessments
Among the most important functions of the specified institution, there is the
determination of such or such intervention is legal or not. Judicial review is thus crucial to police
decisions that impact on citizens’ rights since it affords a method through which the correctness
Page 14 of 26
of procedures observed and criteria employed by a government body or an official when arriving
at a certain decision may be ascertained. There are three spheres of independent jurisdiction
regarding the reasons of intervention, procedural and substantive aspects of intervention, as well
as its compatibility with the base laws or going beyond it. For example, if the board of a certain
city local government passes an ordinance that aims to control when, where and how protests can
be conducted in the city, the people of the city can go to court seeking justice upon the ground
that they have been denied their rights to free speech and association as enshrined in the supreme
law of the land. A judge would review this and the other facts in the case and decide if the board
of taking the protest constraint acted improperly and illiciting the law or legal precedents.
Legally it defines the boundaries about which kinds of interferences are acceptable and which
would be considered as a violation of the rights and freedoms. Moreover, alongside the
constitutional rights, the procedure of pre-judicial control defines the lawfulness of interferences
based on statutes and regulations. Wherever an administrative agency issues out a regulation or a
ruling that entails a compliance cost to the businesses or individuals, the affected persons are
entitled to seek judicial review in the courts as to whether the agency has complied with the
procedural formalities of the statute that endowed the agency with the power. In this case, the
court nullifies the intervention when the procedure or substance of the intervention is unlawful as
a means of making clarification regarding what could amount to a proper exercise of power by
the agency concerned. There are also other legislations that cause a digging in of heels if there is
such a term, in the marketplace or society and these are also subject to judicial review. Judicial
systems operate to provide a decision pertaining to the constitutionality of statutes and to seek a
correspondence to broader legal principles. The judicial review remains an outstanding legal
framework for the evaluation of interventions throughout the system of government for their
Page 15 of 26
compliance with legislation and earlier decisions, as well as an effective counterbalance, and a
brake on the extent and activity of officials’ actions with regard to the rights and freedoms of
citizens.
Interagency coordination challenges in democratic intervention planning
The issue of inter-agency coordination poses a major problem in the planning of
democratic intervention. It is also important for the executive branch of the government to
provide leadership, establish proper reporting lines, be ready to involve a number of departments
such as defense, diplomacy, intelligence, and development groups all of which can be seen to be
engaged in the development of the strategy. Different organizational cultures and priorities,
along with the lack of synchronization in planning, create obstacles. National security
organizations commonly want immediate, forceful actions and hierarchical decision making
processes while the other elements of the agency typically desire slow, steady capability building
measures with local allies. In reporting about intelligence supported intervention, plans must also
be communicated while preserving sources and methods. These conflicting views can result in
timely decisions being delayed or an inconsistent message being provided to the clients which is
counterproductive to the objectives of the intervention. Also, the flow of information is
hampered between agencies because some information may be classified or they may not have
secure lines of communication that facilitate the process of coordination. Leadership tensions
may also emerge in interactions with top officials from these agencies who seek to dominate
policy formulation on the basis of factors other than organizational mission priorities. These
challenges are aggravated by the involvement of the international allies and partners who come
with completely different institutional environment and manners of operations. It is crucial to
begin creating an interagency coordination structure from scratch in such cases, preferably with
Page 16 of 26
the support of the National Security Council, which can reduce the hierarchy of decision-making,
offer transparency across governments and, establish routine and timely communications, and
afford a platform for the resolution of competing claims. Moreover, the move to create a shared
or social identity towards the goal of the intervention rather than driving self-interest of
individual organizations can foster cooperation. The essence of democratic intervention planning
means that no matter how it is developed, it will involve multiple stakeholders, therefore
implying multi-agency and multi-disciplinary elements, which can be addressed and overcome
by sound architectures for coordination and unity of effort in order to bring together all elements
of national power required for successful mission planning and execution.
Democratic Alliances and Multilateral Intervention Approaches
Coalition-building processes reflecting shared democratic intervention values
Democratic intervention values for building coalitions are vital in coalition-based
processes that enhance harmony, cohesiveness, and progressive reform. It is only when like-
minded groups with similar objectives and beliefs engage in action, the results will be better than
if an individual group worked alone. In building successful coalitions, there is a need for these to
states that there should be common vision and values but these must be anchored on principles
such as non discrimination, right of the people, social justice and non violence, which also
involves communication, delegation of authority, joint responsibility, and mechanisms for
handling conflict in order to nurture trust and sustained intervention commitment. Individuals
from all walks of life should be celebrated and everyone’s input should be valued to ensure those
who are joining feel accepted. Management by objectives and key activities, delegation of tasks,
and the creation of a tasks checklist are useful in realizing strategic goals and objectives while
ensuring that the coalition is on the right track. Adequate channels that allow the exchange of
Page 17 of 26
ideas within the group and ways of decision making that involve collaborative efforts are
important. Member organizations have to accept that there will be some surrender of their
sovereignty for the benefit of the group but it does not mean that they have to lose their
individuality. This is because most of the time people are grouped together and come up with
conclusions that almost in every instance require a lot of consensus building to come up with
common solutions. Nevertheless, it is assists in having professional moderators in guiding the
group as well as solving any conflict. This is because as long as the core values that led to the
formation of the coalition are maintained, differences in opinion every now and then need not
necessarily derail a coalition. In fact, conflict can even be productive if it is managed correctly as
it fosters growth, responsibility and commitment. When stakeholders organize a democratic
process that allows for all partners to be heard and integrated into the coalition, then the end
result is a powerful force that can make the necessary changes. Through the process of time,
determination, understanding of the essence of change in the society, the ability to work together
with other groups of people who share similar goals and values, leadership that is based on
shared values can make a positive difference and help to propagate change.
NATO decision-making procedures as democratic intervention model
The information on the ways and means of the decision making in the NATO is really
quite fascinating to study the role of democracy interference in the international relations. NATO
is an intergovernmental military organization comprising of 28 member states in North America
and Europe and it is based on consensus decision making and is legally bound by the defence
policies that the all the member party has accepted to be bound to. Pursuant to Article 217 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, any decision made in the process of adopting
legally non-binding acts can only be taken after all the member states have been consulted while
Page 18 of 26
any approval for a certain method of work is also arrived at after consultation with all the
member state. On the strength of this consensus based process, the benefit that could be accrued
is the fact that the decisions and actions that are made are most likely to be supported by all the
members of the organization, though it is usually a rather time consuming manner of decision
making. The main critics of NATO state that The system of voting known as consensus prevents
the organization from moving decisively very often. First of all, a collective action can only be
achieved among multiple sovereign states, and here they have conflicting self-interests to look
into; hence they easily get complacent. However, through the years NATO has provided relief in
certain aspects through changing the decision making structure since the times of the alliance
was changing dynamically. Such measures can be taken by a qualified majority in the NATO
Council now, when decisions can be taken with ‘minus one’ or ‘minus two’ votes, i. e., the vote
of all the members is not required. It helps in keeping balance with the adjustment of democratic
consent as well as the efficiency of the state.
NATO is one of the examples of how the democratic countries behave in the world of the
heavy clashes and the crises, and how they can implement law and intervention recognizing the
sovereignty of the countries. Because of the system within the decision-making through the
NATO Council and other associated bodies, the essential features of the process consist of the
ensuing negotiations, compromise and even conflict resolution in an effort to arrive at the
formation of the shared viewpoints. While often non-productive, this pattern allows all the
Member States to present their opinions and issues during the marathon sessions. This also
strengthens the foundation of working with standards of democracy like the principles of equity
in which all the NATO member countries will be given equal votes. The manner and style of
affairs of NATO is viewed as one of the potential venues in which one may look for a set of
Page 19 of 26
practices that might entail objectives for building new, more effective multipolarity based
security organizations. NATO has shown that although it is annoying to have high threshold of
decision making, it has worked step by step for democratization. It is possible to consider it as
the important reference to the opportunities and the issues that can arise in the global village if
people come together.
UN Security Council dynamics complicating democratic interventions
The interactions in the UN Security Council level are often a thorn in any liberal
democratic attempts at reform in world politics. Security Council has fifteen members with five
of them being permanent members these being China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and
United States and the rest being non-permanent members with each having a vote in the Security
Council but none of them having a veto power over the decisions taken in the Security Council.
This configuration was intended to maintain cooperation among nations worldwide after World
War II because the United Nations can only intervene if the major world powers approve of it.
However, in more recent years, the differences in interest, political and economic ideologies and
priorities of these six permanent members have often caused stalemate within the Council
concerning possible actions intended to encourage democratization or guarantee the respect of
human rights. For instance, Russia and China have usually voted against intervention that might
establish new standards for the membership of the United Nations to interfere in the internal
political processes of the member countries because they are afraid that standards that may be
made today may be used to justify a foreign interference in their own repressive regime
tomorrow. The US and the UK, for instance, are the countries that have been urging the Security
Council to be more proactive in addressing human rights abuses and democratic strives around
the world. Between these two prevailing viewpoints among the permanent members, little has
Page 20 of 26
been set for mutual agreement to be reached on how to go about handling the issues, implying
that most of the proposals for interventions are either automatically stuck in a hornet’s nest of
protracted debates, procedural hitches, or outright vetoes within the Security Council. The
outcome is an intergovernmental organization aimed at achieving collective global leadership
that has become an entity often paralyzed at best and rendered ineffective at worst in terms of its
ability to act, even in cases when human rights and basic freedoms are trampled upon on a
massive scale in various countries around the globe, and pro-democracy movements are met with
severe oppression. Sustaining a unified permanent body to support the UN, NATO, or AU
backed interventions against authoritarian regimes or human rights abuses is still a hard task.
Measures have been proposed to either increase the number of members for the Security Council
or alter the veto powers but as with the question of arriving at consensus for intervening in the
affairs of a sovereign state, it has not been easy to arrive at consensus on reform measures that
will actually make a difference. As long as these dynamics within the Security Council remain
unmitigated, the ideal of global leadership embodied by the United Nations will remain
unrealized particularly as it pertains to liberation efforts throughout the world in defense of
democracy for the oppressed. Securing change within the Council can be as significant for the
international efforts to promote democracy as any activity the Council might legitimate.
Media and Public Opinion in Democratic Interventions
Free press influencing public support for military actions
It has now been established that military actions and decisions on foreign policy are
partly determined by the free press. A free and an independent media can question the
government assertions, pose questions that may never be answered by the leaders and bring out
the opposition voices that give the citizens a fuller picture on which they can base their
Page 21 of 26
judgments. The media has the capability of influencing the public view or even compromising on
their role as watchdogs and fail to dig deep in establishing the truth. In the build-up to war in
2003, American media merely served as an echo chamber for claims coming directly from the
Bush administration regarding weapons of mass destruction. Newspapers produced baseless
stories on Iraq’s abilities, such as the false allegation of the acquisition of uranium along with
aluminum tubes as used in the production of nuclear weapons. This means that the public was
more or less convinced to support the invasion. However, when there was no such weapon, even
the media were criticised for not approaching the evidence more critically. Something similar
was seen in the 1980s when Reagan upped Cold War militarism and direct involvement in other
countries. The Fourth Network tried to portray the leftist movements in Central America as evil
without much discussion regarding its propriety to involve the United States. In the more recent
past, what little of this has happened has been in the media, and again, this pertains to lethal
drone warfare programs that research indicates the American public would not endorse if they
knew the true toll on civilians. It is, nevertheless, supposed to be an independent press that
challenges such policies; however, structural relationships between large media organizations
and the state have traditionally hampered criticism. However, the media can also contribute to
the formation of a negative attitude to military operations even in the cases when it would be
justified in the framework of human rights protection. For instance, given ignorance of the public
to issues that define conflicts in Syria or Yemen, media coverage only leads to developing
indifferent approach to constructive interventions. Not so long, such pictures of the injured have
prompted public outrage against any action. Obstacles related to presenting foreign conflicts to
the masses are not only in the attempts to portray such conflicts as fully simplified that the public
ends up opposing military intervention in any conflict regardless of what experts recommend.
Page 22 of 26
The media is most helpful when the citizen can be given the truth and all the facts necessary for
them to assess potential policy options themselves instead of having their feelings played with.
Social media's role in shaping intervention narratives
Social networks have extended features of the Internet as far as the way people receive
the news and information on the events and processes in the world, which has impacted the
narratives that develop around foreign policy interventions in the most significant way possible.
While before one often heard only from top officials or read newspaper articles, now social
media allows for equal speech. Increased access does not mean truthful or balanced portrayals
and can deepen problematic perceptions and representations. The civilians were able to share
their experiences in conflict areas through social media for example during the Arab Spring or
the Syrian civil war. The raw feel of it might elicit the audience’s empathy and form the opinions
of the protagonists’ good or evil sides. However, it has been seen that shortened posts lacked
context and; fake news continued to proliferate. In the Libyan case, rebels were particularly
active on social networks to appeal to the Western audience, posting text, images, and videos
expressing a humanitarian crisis which should warrant intervention. These helped in justifying
NATO’s military actions across the globe on humanitarian intents. The issues that played out on
the ground is much more complicated. In like manner, the first voices uttered on the social media
that urged intervene as conflict began was Syria can also be characterized as naive and
insufficiently reasoned. Of course, even historical broadcast and print media coverage of foreign
crises has never been completely objective or neutral. But editorial policies are at least an
attempt to remain balanced, accurate and present multiple perspectives at any given time. With
the increase in social media as a prime source of news, especially for the younger generation,
informality and absences of regulated information are issues. A photo, a video or a post can elicit
Page 23 of 26
an emotional response, but may not provide all the background. Newbie users are also aware that
state actors and other political interests use these platforms to carefully spread the desired
agendas to further bend the lenses. Thus, social media is influencing people’s views on conflicts
in other countries and the desired actions. It is important to encourage Diversity of voices as well
as critical thinking in a bid to suppress reductive intervention narratives. The free access to
information has both the potential and the risks as a part of use of technology in policy making at
this juncture. Discernment, perspective-taking and the stress on verificatory activities may result
in social media being utilized in a positive way.
NGO advocacy impacting democratic governments' intervention decisions
In this regard, non-governmental organisations advocating for the same plays the major
role in defining the intervention decisions by the democratic governments. Furthermore, because
many NGOs have formed, and have more resources at their disposal, and have easier access to
the policy makers and have got better perceived credibility on important global issues thus in the
last few decades the policy makers do take seriously when they are likely to advocate their
campaigns or furnish inputs while considering options for intervention. Especially for famous
human rights focused NGOs like Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch and Doctors
without Borders, that produce their annual reviews on emergencies and conflicts that democratic
governments might wish to get involved in for both human rights and geo-political causes. For
instance, Human Rights Watch staffs deployed researchers to the commits of genocide like the
Darfur Genocide in the early 2000s. These reports painted a picture that the non-Arabs in Sudan
were being gradually exterminated and this earned a lot of coverage in the public domain as well
as the media. This advocacy made the non-governmental organisations interfere in the
international affairs by demanding that the UN should pass antidemocratic resolutions on Sudan,
Page 24 of 26
later demanding sanctions and blue helmet forces for the country. Similar to the case of Rwanda,
Kosovo, Libya and Syria other NGO documentation and activism have equally offered a strong
resistance force to decisions by democratic states to either to intervene or abstain from
intervention. It has continued in the recent years as humanitarian NGOs released massive reports
on the Tigray Ethnic conflict in Ethiopia or China’s treatment to the Uyghur population. They do
this though continuously in structuring and framing the debate on humanitarian intervention in
America and Europe, but of course, other geo-political and geo-strategic consideration are, as
always, in the mix. Despite the fact that, NGOs are not official state actors they use moral
authority and though they may not have the power to make decisions, they can frame crises,
report them, and even start campaigns, making them actors in the extent to a great deal involved
in the discursive process of the democratic governments’ deliberation and decision-making
regarding the intervention strategies. However, their advocacy influence is still variable in
relation to contextual strategic contingencies usually preceded by the volition of state
governments at a certain point in time. Perhaps no policy areas capture this emergence like
humanitarian crises and conflicts through increasingly potent part they portray in defining the
Governments’ choice of intervention in the contemporary world today.
Conclusion
There are various dilemmas involved between liberal beliefs on the one hand and the
implementation of interferences on the other. It is also important to have robust democratic
mechanisms of how the voice of the populace as well as the congress can be incorporated in the
matters of the military. The practical usage of multifaceted interventions in foreign affairs is
often characterized by urgent actions that cannot be implemented if the whole process benefits
from the public’s discussions. A rather confusing and rough balancing act, indeed, is performed
Page 25 of 26
in attaining these goals of the domestic democracy with the exercise of international
responsibilities. The principles of democracy cannot be right to call for shallowness and fake
debates, not to mention consensus on crucial matters for one’s society, like a war. However, war
and civil strife situations especially in foreign territories are not that easily determined and can
hardly be likened to ‘executing plan B within the next few hours’. Efforts to shape the course and
results of large, lengthy controversies in the presence of domestic democratic diplomatic
pressures are exhausting; it is then compounded by the task of leading a military that wants its
leadership to aggressively fight for the nation’s interests internationally. Realities on the ground
prove the truism that there is always a gap in terms of time when legislative bodies have to make
over the emerging strategy. Managers are always struggling to ensure that they are not controlled
by the legislatures in order to have operating freedom. This inevitably leads to criticism over
overextension even when it is reasonable from the interventionist perspective. Here, the
privatized sentiment creation via the free media coupled with discussion helps in shaping the
acceptable and seemingly open-ended and costly exposure across foreign countries. There may
be a notion that voters’ input will be considered and the officials who are wary of such steps may
reject such interferences that do not have clear channels to flee. Nonetheless, the process of
transition in today’s conflicts is complex and often not linear, therefore, a limited and defined
time frame is seldom in place. Ideals also do not align with realities that result from power
dynamics, thus meaning that communicating around idealist objectives is antithetical to the
practicality that characterizes power.
Even today, as it can be seen, the search for democracy in decision making and, at the
same time, the high efficiency of interventions remains a search. This tension may always be
there but nevertheless if efforts are made to educate the public on the realities of foreign policy
Page 26 of 26
this can go a long way in managing public outrage whenever the military operations do not
appear to achieve the high-flying objectives yet it achieves the strategic intent. Possibility to
cultivate utilitarian and realistic approach concerning the international conflicts might have
paved the way for the formation of the political climate for the proper, sequential activities in the
sphere of foreign policy. Those who systematically educate the citizens on highly twisting
histories and seemingly contradictory nature of manners in foreign affairs remain in power and
perform international duties. The combination of maintaining the intervention whilst also
concurrently ensuring democratic consent might be a concept very similar to the one with its
focus on the policy discourse’s inclusiveness even if at first, the strategy appears to be
completely contradictory to it.
