democratization

It is not uncommon to assume that the Turkish military’s influence over politics has sharply decreased during the JDP governments. However, the JDP’s de-militarization policy has not produced a consolidated democracy and militarism has not totally disappeared from the legal, economic and social spheres. This is called pseudo transformation because the JDP has pursued a pragmatic policy that aims to keep the military from toppling civilian governments but avoids making democratic reforms in order to consolidate its power in domestic politcs. As a result of this policy, state institutions including the Turkish Armed Forces have become non-transparent and non-accountable. In the final analysis, the military has remained a black box despite the fact that its scope and influence has narrowed down.

Between 1966 and 1998 senior members of the Indonesian military were appointed to legislative and administrative bodies and occupied key positions in the bureaucracy as well as in state-owned corporations. They also held a number of legislative seats in the parliament and influenced the government-supported party GOLKAR. Since 1998, however, a process of democratization has led to a greater civilian control of the armed forces. The study focuses on this process as well as on the external challenges faced by the Indonesian armed forces

The forms of international intervention have deeply changed since the end of the Cold War. They have assumed a democratic character: recent cases of intervention are mainly carried out by democracies and are justified by democratic principles as the protection of human rights or the promotion of human dignity. Moreover, they are aimed at the democratization of the target-country. This unprecedented democratic attitude has given birth to a new kind of relationship between international intervention and democratization - which in the past was understood only as a domestic political process.

This analysis examines the role of NATO in democratic transition processes. The author argues that a lower level of threat to national security and a more cooperative approach with neighbors help stabilize democratic institutions and structures in countries in transitions. NATO has the tools to increase collaborative security and to assist countries in the development of national security strategies compatible with regional stability. These tools range from military assistance programs, to political dialogue initiatives.

This analysis suggests the idea that shared sovereignty and neotrusteeships are the result of the paradoxes entailed by the promotion of democracy by external intervention. The goal of democratization and the democratic attitude of recent  international interventions lead to some contradictory principles, particularly between the respect of selfdetermination and external control and between temporary engagement and protracted international interference.

Recent scholarship has shown that the likelihood that American sponsored military interventions will bring about democracy over the long term is very low, even when democracy is a stated goal of the intervention. This research paper will extend this body of research to investigate when, and under what conditions, US interventions that are focused on

bringing about democratization are likely to result in better human rights conditions.