Search

This paper investigates the role of domestic, country-specific conditions in the target countries for the conception and implementation of democracy promotion strategies by the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US). First, an analytical framework is outlined to allow the identification of 'differentiated strategies'. We build upon the assumption that the 'grey zone' of semi-authoritarian regimes presents the greatest challenge to external democracy promotion. Empirically, we look for conceptual differentiation at the global level and analyze differentiation in implementation in four country case-studies (Morocco, Tunisia, Belarus, and Ukraine). In general, we find a surprising similarity between the two actors' democracy promotion efforts. Even though the EU highlights a cooperative approach whereas the US openly pursue a two-track approach, democracy promotion efforts of the two actors are similarly adapted to a country's context and its development in our four case-studies. Our findings suggest that both actors only choose a truly conflictive approach in reaction to a dramatic worsening of the political situation. In contrast, undemocratic but stable semi-authoritarian regimes are not the focal point of democracy promotion efforts: the scope for cooperative action is significantly limited and not backed up by a conflictive approach. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the end of the Cold War, states and international organizations have systematically mainstreamed good governance in their development strategies for third countries. The European Union is no exception. In fact, the EU has been among the first to include good governance, together with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in its cooperation agreements with external partners. The promotion of these principles ranks particularly high in the emerging European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the foreign policy framework that organizes its relations with former Soviet countries. This paper seeks to systematically compare the EU's good governance promotion approaches in the Southern Caucasus. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are equally marked by bad governance. Arbitrary rule and pervasive corruption are common in all three countries. Nonetheless, they significantly vary with regard to the degree of statehood, the quality of the political regime, and their economic conditions. Our aim is to explore to what extent these variations cause the EU to adapt its strategies in promoting good governance. Looking at a rather recent policy framework, such as the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), we seek to give some answers to the question whether the EU sticks to its "one size fits all" approach, or whether it has started to practice some differential treatment. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]