Since the Mexican Revolution, American policymakers have used force to supplant foreign regimes in an attempt to spread democracy and advance economic interests. They believe a more democratic world is safer for the United States. But academic research shows that regime change policies rarely succeed as intended and frequently produce unintended consequences.
The most common argument for regime change is that odious leaders do harm to their people by repressing independence movements or committing other abuses. These leaders should be replaced by a government that will have their citizens’ best interests in mind. This is an appealing idea, but there are important cultural and economic conditions that must be met before democratization can occur.
For example, many people who own land and other assets in a developing country do not want to see those assets expropriated by a democratic government. The fact that most of these people can diversify their wealth abroad or move it to another country reduces the incentive to support a democratic government, and they will instead prefer a regime that protects their property rights.
Other scholars argue that there are a series of micro-processes that determine whether a country is predisposed to one kind of regime or another, such as a state’s economic development and the evolution of new informal norms and values. These forces may be triggered by certain micro-events, such as economic and social disruption or the collapse of existing institutions. However, these processes do not guarantee that a given macro-environment will be conducive to regime change or, when it does occur, that it will produce democracy.
About the Author
