User:Carter925/sandbox

= Regime Change = Regime change is the replacement of one government regime with another. There are three types of regime change: (1) transition from one autocratic regime to another autocratic regime, (2) transition from an autocratic regime to a democratic regime, and (3) transition from a democratic regime to an autocratic regime. From 1972 to 2003, 77 percent of regime changes were transitions from one authoritarian regime to another authoritarian regime Only twenty three percent of regime changes were transitions from authoritarian regime to a democratic regime. Within recent years, there has been an increase in regime changes that demonstrate transitions from democracy to autocracy. For the first time since 2001, democracies are no longer in the majority regime type. In 2010 fifty five percent of the countries in the world were democratic, however as of 2019 only forty eight percent are democratic. This is referred to as the "third wave of authoritarianism"

Internal Regime Change
=== Terry Karls Typology ===

Neighborhood Diffusion
Diffusion is the spread of democratic ideas and attitudes across states. It occurs when government democratization policy decisions in a given country are systematically conditioned by previous policy choices made in neighboring countries. While there is a general consensus on the definition of diffusion within the academic field, there is dissent regarding the mechanisms that explain diffusion.Jonathan Jacob Ring argues that there are four different diffusion mechanisms: coercion, competition, emulation, and learning. Coercive diffusion occurs when powerful actors at the top of the hierarchy use coercive methods to ensure the implementation of democratic measures. Competition diffusion is the result of states having to invest in democratic reforms in order to compete for material rewards and/or social status within their region. In emulation, states model the democratization process of a powerful neighboring country. Learning diffusion is similar to emulation. However, it requires a state to communicate with the state it is modeling to gain a full understanding of the democratic transition process.

Jan Teorell argues that neighborhood diffusion can be explained by two factors; impositions and emulation. Impositions occurs when countries that have implemented democratic measures themselves try to promote democratization among their neighboring states. This is to ensure their own internal security and stability. Emulation is when the motivation for diffusion emerges internally, within the neighboring countries themselves. States demonstrate emulation by imitating the democratization processes of the neighboring state that first successfully transitioned towards democracy.

Seva Gunitsky created a conceptual framework to explain the mechanisms of diffusion that were prevalent during democratic waves. It is organized along two central dimensions. The first focuses on the origins of external influences. Vertical waves are created by geopolitical shifts, whereas horizontal waves are influenced by neighborhood linkages. The second dimension focuses on the strength of external influences in shaping the wave’s timing. Contagion waves are short sweeping waves that override domestic constraints and emulation waves are protracted waves where domestic factors act as focal points for mobilization. The interaction of these categories yields a four-part typology of democratic waves, each with its own dynamics and causal mechanisms.

Regional Organizations
Democratic regional organizations are strong actors that have the capabilities to promote democracy among member states and potential member states. Regional organizations have the ability and resources to pressure authoritarian member states to implement democratic reforms, socialize economic and military elites into accepting democratic procedures, and bind newly elected elites in novice democracies to these reforms. Therefore, membership in democratic regional organizations promotes transitions toward democracy and strengthens democratic survival. Pevehouse argues that there are three distinct causal mechanisms through which membership in a democratic regional organization furthers democratization in a country: pressure, acquiescence effect, and legitimization.


 * 1) Pressure: Verbal condemnation and threats of sanctions or other punishments. This can damage the economy of the non-democratic regime and has the potential to delegitimize the regime domestically and internationally.
 * 2) Acquiescence Effect: The notion that fears of democracy might be reduced among elite groups if the state is a member of a democratically committed regional organization. If the elites fears are weakened then they are more willing to assist in the state's democratization process.
 * 3) Legitimization: Membership in a democratically committed regional organization can provide legitimization for interim governments.

Foreign Imposed Regime Change
Downes and Monten define foreign-imposed regime change as the "the forcible or coerced removal of the effective leader of one state - which remains formally sovereign afterward- by the government of another state". This is accomplished through military force, the threat of force, or covert actions. Between 1815 and 2004 there were over 1000 military interventions. However, only 109 leaders were removed during this period by foreign interventions.

Stephen Walt argues that there are five reasons why the majority of military interventions fail to result in a regime change. The first is that other regimes respond to the overthrowing of a regime by taking actions and/or becoming involved to build up their own defenses. The second reason is that it is difficult to form a new government once a regime is overthrown because supporters of the previous regime will retaliate. This often results in a failed state or civil war. The third reason is that once in power, the new government is rarely compliant with the state that intervened. Fourthly, foreign powers are often ignorant in the affairs and culture of the state that they are intervening in. And lastly, no population likes foreign occupation.

Alexander Monten states that a foreign-imposed regime change is successful when the new government is stable and a reliable ally to the intervener. Monten states that there are two variables that contribute to the success of a foreign-imposed regime change. The first focuses on the goals of the intervening state: regime change is more likely to be successful when it attempts to restore a leader who has previously been overthrown by a domestic revolution or coup. Second, foreign-imposed regime changes are more likely to succeed when target states are, institutionally developed,  relatively wealthy, ethnically homogeneous, and whose armies have extensively experienced defeats in war.