September 26, 2020
Several earlier analytically limited measure of democracy such as Bollen’s ‘Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures’; Other sources were excluded for providing discrete regime types instead of linear measures of regime status (e.g. the Democracy-and-Dictatorship data by Cheibub, Gandhi, & Vreeland, 2010, for measuring de jure instead of de facto regime traits (e.g., the Database of Political Institutions by Beck, Clarke, Groff, Keefer, & Walsh, 2001), or for providing insufficient spatial or temporal coverage (e.g., the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, 2016), cannot be effectively used to most the these questions raised above.
In view of these limitations, the organic interconnectedness of the variables that underlie the backlashes and blowbacks of democracy promotion and global security have not been adequately clarified as the nature, the types of regimes mostly affected, and the trend or the magnitude of, and responses to autocratization, have variously and exclusively concentrated on complete democratic breakdowns, mostly in established autocracies.
Both prior literature on autocratization and the global rise of multiparty elections have made it plausible that the current wave of autocratization unfolds in a more clandestine and gradual fashion than its historical precedents. This has led some raise a fundamental question: If autocratization occurs more gradual does this also reduce the magnitude of change? Bermeo (2016: 17) suggests it does. Others entertain more pessimism as can be discerned from such book titles such as “How democracy dies” (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2017) and “How democracy ends” (Runciman 2018).These observations are germane for any student of democracy and development to ignore and constitutes the focus of this analysis.
The analysis unfolds as follows: In addition to the introduction, the first part presents the methodological framework of the study for understanding the fundamental rudiments of democratic assessment. The second part ???????. Part three engages with. Part four reappraises the basic philosophical principle underpinnings of liberal internationalism and international democracy promotion and frames how the interface between liberal internationalism and the United States’ national security strategy constitute backlashes and blowbacks on not only global peace and security, but also undermines democratization around the world. The final part