SOĞUK SAVAŞ SONRASI ORTA DOĞU’DA DEMOKRASİNİN YAYILMASI

Soğuk Savaş’ın sona ermesiyle birlikte dünyadaki tek süper güç olarak kalan ABD, demokrasinin yayılmasını dış politika önceliklerinden birisi olarak benimsemişti. Özellikle 11 Eylül 2001 günü New York’ta gerçekleşen terör saldırıları sonrasında daha belirgin hale gelen görüşe göre ABD’nin süper güç olması, sahip oldukları demokrasi gibi “iyi” bir özelliği “geri kalmış” ülkelere götürme sorumluluğu yüklemekteydi. En son 2001 yılında Afganistan’ın ve sonrasında 2003 yılında Irak’ın işgal edilmesi ile bu ülkelerde kurulacak yeni sistemin demokratik olacağı, böylelikle çevresindeki ülkelere örnek olacağı tahmin edilmekteydi. Bu çalışmada Soğuk Savaş sonrasında Orta Doğu’da bir ülkede demokrasi seviyesindeki artışın komşu ülkenin demokrasi seviyesinin artmasına etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Zaman serisi analizi ile regresyon analizi yapılarak 1990-2008 yılları arasındaki dönem incelenmektedir. Ampirik sonuçlar Soğuk Savaş sonrası Orta Doğu ülkelerinde demokrasinin gelişmesi çevre ülkelere yayılmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar Orta Doğu’da bir ülkede demokrasi seviyesinin artma ihtimalini yükselten en önemli iki etkenin o ülkenin komşularından daha güçlü oluşu ve ekonomisinin büyük oranda enerji kaynaklarına bağlı olmayışı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Orta Doğu, Demokrasi, Demokrasinin yayılması, ABD

Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Orta Doğu’da Demokrasinin Yayılması

With the end of the Cold War, the U.S identified the spread of democracy as one of its foreign policy priorities. Advocates of this view have believed that the installation of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will render these countries as a role model for their authoritarian neighbors. This article empirically tests the assumption that increasing democracy level in one country will democratize its neighbors in the post-Cold War period Middle East. Empirical findings in this article show that the increasing level of democracy in a Middle Eastern country does not help democracy spread to its neighbors. Results also suggest that there are two factors that are most likely to help increase democracy level in a country: being more powerful than one’s neighbors and having an economy that does not rely on abundant natural resources.

Keywords:

Middle East, Democracy, Diffusion of democracy, USA,

PDF

___

Burnside, C., & D.Dollar. Aid, Policies, and Growth, American Economic Revi- ew 90, No.4 (2000):847-868.
Carothers, Thomas. How Democracies Emerge: The “Sequencing” Fallacy, Jour- nal of Democracy 18, No.1 (2007):12-27
Diamond, Larry. Why are there no Arab democracies, Journal of Democracy 21, No.1 (2010):93 – 104
Easterly, William. Can Foreign Aid Buy Growth?, Journal of Economic Perspec- tives 17, No.3 (2003):23-48.
Enterline, Andrew J. and J. Michael Greig. Beacons of Hope? The Impact of Im- posed Democracyon Regional Peace, Democracy, and Prosperity, Journal of Poli- tics 67, No.4 (2005):1075-1098
Fukuyama, Francis. The end of history and the last men, The Free Press, 1992
Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Oklahoma University Press, 1993.
Knack, Stephan. Does Foreign Aid Promote Democracy?, International Studies Quarterly 48, No.1 (2004):251-266
Kuziemko, Ilyana and Eric Werker. How Much Is a Seat on the Security Council Worth? Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations, Journal of Political Eco- nomy 114, No.5 (2006):905-930
Layne, Christopher. Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace, International Security 19, No.2 (1994):5-49
Leite, Carlos and Jens Weidmann, “Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Reso- urces, Corruption, and Economic Growth,” IMFWorking Paper, WP/99/85 (1999)
Maoz, Zeev and Bruce Russet. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986, American Political Science Review 87, No.3 (1993):624-638
Morgan, Clifton and Sally Howard Campbell. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight?, Journal of Conflict Re- solution 35, No.2 (1991):187-211
O’Loughlin, John, Michael Ward, Corey L.Lofdahl, Jordin S. Cohen, David S. Brown, David Reilly, Kristian S. Gleditsch, and Michael Shin. The Diffusion of Democracy, 1946–1994, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, , No.4 (1998):545–574
Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi. Modernization: Theories and Facts, World Politics 49, No.2 (1997):155-183
Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, Fernando Limon- gi. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990, Cambridge University Press, 2000
Ross, Michael. Does Oil Hinder Democracy?, World Politics 53, (2001):325-61
Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. What Democracy Is... And Is Not, Journal of Democracy 2, No.3 (1991):114 – 120
Shively, W. Philips. Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science, McGraw-Hill, 1997
Singer, J. David. Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capa- bilities of States, 1816-1985, International Interactions 14 (1987):115-32.
Spiro, David. The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace, International Security 19, No.2 (1994):50-86
Starr, Harvey. Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the International System, Journal of Conflict Resolution 35, No.2 (1991):356-381
Stepan, Alfred and Graeme Robertson. An “Arab” More Than a “Muslim” De- mocracy Gap, Journal of Democracy 14, No.3 (2003):30-44
Tessler, Mark. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientations on Attitudes toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries, Comparati- ve Politics 34, No.3 (2002):337-354
Ward, Michael and Kristian S. Gleditsch. Democratizing for Peace, American Po- litical Science Review 92, No.1 (1998):51-61
Wejner, Barbara. Diffusion, Development, and Democracy, 1800-1999, American
Sociological Review 70, No.1 (2005):53-81
Zakaria, Fareed. Islam, Democracy and Constitutional Liberalism, Political Sci- ence Quarterly 119, No.1 (2004):1-20