Just to add something Before anybody promotes democracy anywhere, shouldn’t there be a national unity first? Side question in a democratic elected government, should government tell big business what to do?
On the question of national unity as a prerequisite for promoting democracy, I'm certainly coming at this from the perspective of an American where there is and has long been support for the spread of democracy. The disagreement tends to hinge on how this is best done. One one end of the spectrum you have folk arguing for the "city on the hill" approach of being a successful state that others would seek to emulate. Others advocate for supporting democracy through engagement. And others support advancing democracy with military force. So in the US the larger goal has broad support but the approach tends to divide people. When it comes to using military force to spread democracy (or for any cause), it is generally a good idea to build a social consensus. This is critical when there is a risk that an intervention will become protracted (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan) or require a massive commitment of resources (Korea). The problem is that we often don't know which "interventions" will become protracted. The US interventions in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, and to a lesser extent Liberia were divisive but successful and short. The interventions in Cuba, Libya, and Syria were unsuccessful but remained on such a small scale that most folks in the United States were largely unaware and unconcerned. My answer to the second question is actually structurally very similar. The very concept of sovereignty means states have the power and the "right" to tell big business what to do. Often in democracies, where there is the rule of law and private property rights, this takes the form of regulation and taxation, but rarely price controls or directly controlled production. I think there is consensus that state have and should use this power, but the disagreement comes around the question of scope and scale and approach. I have my own thoughts on this, but I try to keep a pretty clear firewall between my own policy preferences and my attempts to summarize the field of political science/international relations.
Thank you professor ❤
Just to add something
Before anybody promotes democracy anywhere, shouldn’t there be a national unity first?
Side question in a democratic elected government, should government tell big business what to do?
On the question of national unity as a prerequisite for promoting democracy, I'm certainly coming at this from the perspective of an American where there is and has long been support for the spread of democracy. The disagreement tends to hinge on how this is best done. One one end of the spectrum you have folk arguing for the "city on the hill" approach of being a successful state that others would seek to emulate. Others advocate for supporting democracy through engagement. And others support advancing democracy with military force. So in the US the larger goal has broad support but the approach tends to divide people.
When it comes to using military force to spread democracy (or for any cause), it is generally a good idea to build a social consensus. This is critical when there is a risk that an intervention will become protracted (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan) or require a massive commitment of resources (Korea). The problem is that we often don't know which "interventions" will become protracted. The US interventions in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, and to a lesser extent Liberia were divisive but successful and short. The interventions in Cuba, Libya, and Syria were unsuccessful but remained on such a small scale that most folks in the United States were largely unaware and unconcerned.
My answer to the second question is actually structurally very similar. The very concept of sovereignty means states have the power and the "right" to tell big business what to do. Often in democracies, where there is the rule of law and private property rights, this takes the form of regulation and taxation, but rarely price controls or directly controlled production. I think there is consensus that state have and should use this power, but the disagreement comes around the question of scope and scale and approach. I have my own thoughts on this, but I try to keep a pretty clear firewall between my own policy preferences and my attempts to summarize the field of political science/international relations.