The Dilemmas of Liberal Intervention

J. Kopstein
{"title":"The Dilemmas of Liberal Intervention","authors":"J. Kopstein","doi":"10.29654/TJD.200912.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This book brings together two important streams of political science that normally do not speak to each other, the broad literature on democratization and the smaller but formidable thinking on the theory and practice of postwar peacebuilding. Since the 1990s, the editors note, the introduction of democracy in the wake of civil war has become standard practice, especially for the international community which has frequently intervened to help end brutal and protracted civil wars, such as those in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Nepal, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The contributors to this book each assess a different facet of this practice and essentially conclude that, while the theory may be appealing, the practice is full of pitfalls. The rough-and-ready theory of the practitioners is simple enough: vote rather than fight. In the jargon of political science, interests can be articulated either through bullets or ballots, and the latter may be the solution to the former. This intuition is backed by a huge empirical literature in international relations theory which generally shows that democracies do not go to war with each other. Or so the theory goes. Whether it translates to the domestic level and to new democracies is unclear and there is a strand of theory that disputes the latter assertion. In either case, whether propounded by a UN bureaucrat or a political science professor, the practice of democratizing war-torn societies is a sobering one and often it seems that democracy and peace seem to work against each other. After all, democracy is a system of institutionalized conflict, and, it stands to reason, the last thing that war-torn societies need is more conflict. In the short run, democracy may actually work against peacebuilding and peacebuilding may require restrictions on basic liberal rights, such as freedom of the press and mass demonstrations. But in the long run, covering the simmering pot may lead it to explode and it is hard for an outsider to get it exactly right.","PeriodicalId":403398,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan journal of democracy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan journal of democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200912.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This book brings together two important streams of political science that normally do not speak to each other, the broad literature on democratization and the smaller but formidable thinking on the theory and practice of postwar peacebuilding. Since the 1990s, the editors note, the introduction of democracy in the wake of civil war has become standard practice, especially for the international community which has frequently intervened to help end brutal and protracted civil wars, such as those in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Nepal, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The contributors to this book each assess a different facet of this practice and essentially conclude that, while the theory may be appealing, the practice is full of pitfalls. The rough-and-ready theory of the practitioners is simple enough: vote rather than fight. In the jargon of political science, interests can be articulated either through bullets or ballots, and the latter may be the solution to the former. This intuition is backed by a huge empirical literature in international relations theory which generally shows that democracies do not go to war with each other. Or so the theory goes. Whether it translates to the domestic level and to new democracies is unclear and there is a strand of theory that disputes the latter assertion. In either case, whether propounded by a UN bureaucrat or a political science professor, the practice of democratizing war-torn societies is a sobering one and often it seems that democracy and peace seem to work against each other. After all, democracy is a system of institutionalized conflict, and, it stands to reason, the last thing that war-torn societies need is more conflict. In the short run, democracy may actually work against peacebuilding and peacebuilding may require restrictions on basic liberal rights, such as freedom of the press and mass demonstrations. But in the long run, covering the simmering pot may lead it to explode and it is hard for an outsider to get it exactly right.
自由干预的困境
本书汇集了通常互不相关的两种重要的政治学流派,即关于民主化的广泛文献和关于战后建设和平的理论与实践的较小但令人敬畏的思考。编者指出,自20世纪90年代以来,在内战之后引入民主已成为标准做法,特别是国际社会经常进行干预,帮助结束残酷而旷日持久的内战,如科索沃、阿富汗、尼泊尔和刚果民主共和国的内战。本书的撰稿人都对这一实践的不同方面进行了评估,并从本质上得出结论:尽管理论可能很吸引人,但实践却充满了陷阱。实践者的粗略理论很简单:投票而不是战斗。用政治科学的行话来说,利益既可以通过子弹表达,也可以通过投票表达,而后者可能是前者的解决方案。这种直觉得到了大量国际关系理论经验文献的支持,这些文献普遍表明,民主国家之间不会发生战争。至少理论上是这样的。它是否会转化为国内层面和新兴民主尚不清楚,有一种理论对后一种说法提出质疑。无论哪种情况,无论是由联合国官员还是政治学教授提出的,使饱受战争蹂躏的社会民主化的实践都是一个发人深醒的实践,民主与和平似乎往往是相互对立的。毕竟,民主是一种制度化的冲突体系,而且,毫无疑问,饱受战争蹂躏的社会最不需要的就是更多的冲突。从短期来看,民主实际上可能不利于建设和平,而建设和平可能需要限制基本的自由权利,如新闻自由和大规模示威。但从长远来看,盖住锅子可能会导致锅子爆炸,而局外人很难准确把握。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信