**6. Final remarks**

arguing that third-world states were influenced by rich states in the West based on an unjustified and unequal world economic structure. The criticism, however, pointed out the lack of specificity of how to analyze and understand international factors and how and when domes-

It was argued that states were open systems vulnerable for penetration and that developed and powerful states could have a political impact on democracy building [47]. For instance, Rosenaue identified the link politics between the international and national domains as "any recurrent sequence of behavior that originates in one system and is reacted to in another" [48] and focused on the potential impact such links could have on democracy. In the 1990s, the debate about the international dimension re-emerged in the scholarly debate on globalization. The quickly growing number of studies about globalization covered the diffusion of global characteristics within economics, technology, culture and politics and stated a growing notion of interdependence in the world. It was further argued that economic, technological, cultural and political transformations across borders of intensification of interactions, exchanges and meetings led to a de-territorialization of politics in favor of macro-regional, international and global actors and processes. Globalization and global politics were portrayed as enhanced interdependence where global changes were cutting through state borders by challenging the domestic political, economic and cultural domestic structures by decreasing geographical

Research on the international dimension on democracy building, triggered by the studies on globalization, peaked with the end of the Cold War and with the increased power within the West. It resulted in the conceptualization of the international dimension to democracy in democratic diffusion and democratic promotion. First, the diffusion of democracy was argued to happen between nearby locations and between geographical locations far away with similar political, economic and cultural structures (or historical ties). It was stated that the spread of democracy was facilitated by political, cultural and economic salience often provided by geographical proximity, but diffusion could happen as a global phenomenon in a world of decreasing geographical distances. Diffusion of democracy was one important dimension of globalization—aside from the spread of economic liberalism and technology—and embedded the growing popularity of installing democratic governance [50]. The diffusion of democracy from one state or region to another required diffusion agents to assist the spread of democratic rights and liberties. Diffusion agents acted as socialization agents within the transnational networks and domestic domain, interpreting and introducing global norms and values

A second international dimension factor for building democracy has been democracy promotion. Research on democracy promotion has been based on traditional insights from international relations and foreign policy-making, focusing on international actors' motives and methods. The foreign policy analysis has displayed a growing interest in democracy promotion in which democracy promotion has referred to a foreign policy motivation to impact other governments and nations in a pro-democratic direction. Studies during the 1990s [51] argued that democracy promotion were essential factors for the global scope of democratization by

tic politics and economics were influenced by or dictated by external forces.

distances around the world [49].

188 Globalization

to domestic settings.

Democracy refers to the government by the people. It ensures contestation and participation and provides citizens with political rights and civil liberties that promote popular freedom. Democratic systems have been challenged by nondemocratic systems and ideas over time. In the early twenty-first century, we have seen more democratic states than ever, with expanded freedoms in political rights and civil liberties, although an authoritarian upsurge is identified. Such authoritarian upsurge challenges electoral processes, political pluralism and participation, freedom of expression, associational and organizational rights and the rule of law, etc. This chapter has discussed the state-of-the-art research about factors favorable for building democracy in a time of authoritarian upsurge. So where do we stand today when we try to understand the possibilities and problems for democratic transitions? The research from the 1950s forward has developed explanatory factors for democracy building by pointing out national and international factors. This study identified the most important factors from a socioeconomic, cultural and political perspective. It was further argued that the international factors for democracy building, until recently, have constituted forgotten factors for democracy. This has been due to the comparative approach of most democratization studies and to the problems of conceptualizing international factors. However, this chapter presented two important international factors in democracy diffusion and democracy promotion. These factors complement the traditional domestic-oriented understandings of explanatory factors for democratization.

**Author details**

Daniel Silander

**References**

Address all correspondence to: Daniel.Silander@lnu.se

London/New York: Routledge; 2000. p. 1

Future? Journal of Democracy. 2000;**3**:91

University of Oklahoma Press; 1993. 343 p

research. World Politics. 1997;**3**:430-451

Political Science. 2016;**19**:125-144

York: Palgrave; 2001. 379 p

Democracy. 2001;**1**:187-200

[1] Holden B. Introduction. In: Holden, Barry editor. Global democracy: Key Debates.

Building Democracy: National and International Factors http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71984 191

[2] Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. New York/Toronto/Sydney/London:

[3] Diamond L. Is Pakistan the (reverse) wave of the future? Journal of Democracy.

[4] Schmitzs HP, Sell K. International factors in processes of political democratization: Towards a theoretical integration. In: Grugel J, editor. Democracy Without Borders – Transnationalization and Conditionality in New Democracies. London & New York:

[5] The U.S. State Department quoted in Diamond L. Is Pakistan the (Reverse) Wave of the

[6] Lewitsky S, Way L. The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy.

[7] Haggard S, Kaufman RR. Democratization during the third wave. Annual Review of

[8] Huntington SP. The Third Wave – Democratization in the Late 20th Century. Norman:

[9] Collier D, Levitsky S. Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative

[10] Grugel J, editor. Democratization – A critical introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke/New

[11] Diamond L. The Spirit of Democracy – The Struggle to Build Free Socities Throughout

[12] Karatnycky A. The 1999 freedom house survey – A centruy of progress. Journal of

the World. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt and Company; 2008. p. 6

Linnaeus University, Vaxjo, Sweden

Free Press; 1992. 417 p

Routledge; 1999. p. 19

2000;**3**:91-106

2002;**2**:51-65

Based on decades of study about democracy building, contemporary research has continued to focus on national or international explanatory factors on the one hand and how links between the two groups of factors may interact on the other. Though international factors have come to play a much more important role in explaining transitions to democracy than before, today, it is the links between international democracy diffusion and democracy promotion and domestic salience that are in focus. This has led to a re-focus on political aelites and civil society actors as domestic democracy agents and gatekeepers in relation to external pro-democratic pressure. However, in a time of a reawakening of authoritarianism in the world, international pro-democratic forces are under heavy pressure from antidemocratic regimes. This has resulted in further studies on international politics regarding democratization and the balance of power between major states and international organizations and how certain states may be under international pressure and at a crossroads between democracy and authoritarianism. This has especially been the case in contemporary Eastern Europe and East Asia with the rising international power of Russia and China. Contemporary research on democracy building has become even more complex and requires scholarly collaboration between researchers belonging to comparative and international politics. It requires a firm understanding of national and international explanatory factors, but also how such factors may interact [56]. Based on previous research, long-term structural factors are important to build democracy. Such factors are economic prosperity, civil society activities, popular mobilization and political institutions. But actor-oriented factors are also crucial to understand democracy building in the short-run. It is foremost the different domestic elites and their perceptions, behavior and strategies that may provide window of opportunities for transitions to happen. In addition, national determinants to democratization must be linked to international factors in actors, structures and processes that penetrates state borders and may be prodemocratic or antidemocratic in nature.
