In the past, Western interventions have not wanted to implement democratic forms of government and favored a stable autocracy over potentially unstable democracy. Since 1945, 75% of interventions have led to no changes in government (Williams and Masters, 2011). In Iraq, the US attempted to handpick a leader and chose Ahmed Chalabi to head the government in order to help maintain order and influence (Mesquita and Downs, 2006). However, Iraqi officials and civilians who knew that his loyalty and influence was with the US began seeing him as illegitimate and therefore resisted him as a leader. Do superpower interventions to install and prop up political leaders in other countries result in more or less democracy? (Easterly, Satyanath, Berger). …show more content…
Under such circumstances, the survival in office of a superpower installed chief executive hinges on providing the superpower that installed him what it wants by way of repressive policies. Repression of communists/anti-communists is perhaps easiest for a chief executive to implement if he is unconstrained from seeking the approval of a large number of domestic political actors prior to implementing the repressive measures. It is thus in the interest of a superpower installed leader to attempt to reduce the domestic checks and balances on his power. It is not in the interest of any superpower—democratic or undemocratic which has placed a priority on repressing opponents overseas to oppose such attempts at centralization of power, since checks and balances are likely to make repression more difficult. Thus from this perspective, it is possible to expect interventions by democratic and authoritarian superpowers to lead to declines in democracy. Statistically, Easterly, Satyanath and Berger prove this assumption by showing that the substantive effect of a US intervention is to reduce democracy by 36%, while the effect of a Soviet intervention is to reduce democracy by