“We are seeing a new environment for political transitions, a new global marketplace,” explained School of Public Policy Distinguished Visiting Professor Thomas Carothers in his public lecture at CEU on Monday evening. “The west,” said Carothers, “is now just one of many actors influencing political transitions”—a term that he said he was trying to redefine so that it referred not to states transitioning in a linear way, but rather in a more neutral way to states whose political systems were “in flux.” This new context, Carothers said, has significant implications for western policy makers who are still often thinking about and acting upon political transitions around the world on the basis of old frameworks of assumptions in which the west is the primary shaper of political trends in the world.
Carothers focused on three categories of state actors: undemocratic states, rising non-western democracies, and western democracies. Turning his attention first to autocratic states, he said that Ukraine was only the most recent chapter in a long story of Russian involvement in the region to secure its sphere of influence. Carothers identified several nondemocratic states that were particularly active in influencing the shape of political transitions in the Middle East noting that Iran has become “an actor of considerable skill” in influencing transitional outcomes in neighboring countries like Iraq and Syria. He described recent Saudi Arabian engagement with Syria and Yemen; and said that Qatar and UAE “are involved in several important transitions in the region.”
Assessing the actions of this first group of state actors, Carothers said he was struck by several things: the number of such states active in political activities across borders, how assertive they were; how quick some of them are to use military means; and the complexity of their motives. “All countries pursue their own interests. Democracies don't always promote democracy. Autocracies don't always promote autocracy,” said Carothers.
Although rising democracies, the second group of state actors, have traditionally had a strong allegiance to political non-interference, they too have become increasingly engaged in efforts to affect the shape of political transitions around them. Carothers provided many examples: Brazil’s involvement in Haiti; India’s activities in Afghanistan; and Turkey’s active engagement in the Arab world. Carothers noted that although this group of state actors has become increasingly interventionist, they are much less assertive than the first group, and have shown little interest in partnering with western democracies.
Turning his attention to western democracies, Carothers observed that although there was indeed “intervention fatigue” in many western democracies, they were “still out there and active.” One example of this continued commitment is that western democracies spent more than $10 billion to support democratization efforts last year.
In concluding his remarks, Carothers said that the multiplication of state as well as non-state actors in political transitions worldwide creates an extremely complex and challenging environment. “There are no rules in this new marketplace. States are doing what they want, where they want, and how they want to do so.” He said that the west needed “to up its game to meet this more challenging environment” if it wanted to continue to be effective.
The lecture is in the University’s series on Frontiers of Democracy, an initiative that aims to promote open debate, discussion, and the exchange of ideas with a diversity of views about the nature of democracy.
The full lecture is available to view here: