Democracy In Germany And Japan Post World War II

Democracy has been in a dominant position in the world since its rise during the turn of the 20th century (Fukuyama, 2006). Its expansion through coercion, which is military intervention in this case, has meant that democracy continues to expand across the globe. With the decline of communism, the West was able to expand democracy into several areas, openly and secretly, to encourage favorable governments. This expansion has been criticized with regards to its legitimacy and feasibility in developing strong, sustainable governance and benefits to citizens of “intervened states.” Germany and Japan post World War II are cited as successes on the impact of military intervention in promoting democracy in terms of economic benefits, freedoms and

For a state, if there has been no previous experience of democracy or it has experienced failed attempts at democratization then the likelihood of a successful democracy is diminished (Russett, 2005). Over the 20th century, key success stories for democratization via military intervention have been Japan and Germany. Both ended war with the allied powers of World War II with totalitarian regimes. Germany had a history with failed democracy while Japan had no experience of it. Both were located in undemocratic regions and suffered from serious economic hardships after the war, yet have been able to maintain durable and long lasting democracies. In both examples, there was a strong case to be made for their successful adoption of democracy, based on the level of economic and intellectual development invested within them. Post-war America and its allies were focused on democratizing both states and bringing them into their areas of influence. Both nations, through long-term occupation and protection from allied forces, were able to prosper from stability and security, thereby opposing threats from neighbors and were able to spread economic growth throughout their respective nations. It is important to note however, that military support and investment of that magnitude are uncommon. Even with large and continued support, success is not guaranteed. For example, Iraq has also had long term

In the case of Iraq there is a historical inexperience with democracy, along with the fact that states that have gone through civil conflict find it harder to overcome internal underlying issues and still be able to democratize (Russett, 2005). States where interventions take place are often weaker than the interveners and have some form of humanitarian, political and social issues caused by failure of government, civil war and insurgence (Enterline and Greig, 2008). This breakdown in society and division in politics means they are not likely to be “fertile ground” for any major upheaval, especially without extended support (Owen, 2002). Therefore, any democratic implementation is dangerous unless underlying issues are addressed because it is these issues that provide further challenges to any attempt at democratization. The rationale behind the intervention, including the motivations and methods of the intervener also plays a major part in the success of a young democracy over the long term. For many, the thought of forcing a nation or people to be free as well as fighting a war in order to end another war is morally contradictory (Gleditsch, 2007). This is why many people have an issue with implementing democratic regimes through military intervention both practically and morally (Russett,