Kyrgyzstan and the Cost of Not Supporting Democracy

Abstract

During the Bush administration, as democracy assistance evolved from being a relatively uncontroversial U.S. policy with bipartisan support to a controversial policy associated with the neoconservative agenda, academics, journalists and others hastened to identify the political costs of doing democracy work. Critics of democracy assistance argued that encouraging elections too quickly in war torn countries could exacerbate ethnic tensions and ensure greater instability. Others argued that more democracy would bring antiAmerican leaders to power, particularly in Muslim countries, while still others argued that for poor unstable countries, stability, security and economic development should all be higher priorities than democracy.