Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T09:24:18.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The shifting salience of democratic governance: Evidence from the United Nations General Assembly General Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Catherine Hecht
Catherine Hecht*
Affiliation:
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, Vienna School of International Studies
*
*Correspondence to: Catherine Hecht, Vienna School of International Studies, Favoritenstraße 15a, A-1040 Vienna, Austria. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How has the salience of democratic governance varied as an issue and as a basis of social status in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over time? International Relations (IR) scholars typically assume a high salience of democratic governance in international society after the Cold War, yet evidence suggests important fluctuations and that these assumptions should be qualified. This article presents quantitative and qualitative results of a manually-coded content analysis of the UNGA General Debates between 1992 and 2014, with comparison to 1982, illustrating variation in the frequency and content of state representatives’ references to democracy and the use of democratic governance as a symbol of status. What factors influence the salience of a given dimension of social status in an international organisation? Explanations supplement IR approaches with insights from social psychology, including the relevance of high and low identifiers, accessibility, fit, current and anticipated group status, and regional status concerns. The article analyses trends in states’ support for principles underpinning international order, which have broader implications for literature on global governance and status in world politics as well as for international democracy support.

Keywords

International OrganisationsDemocratic GovernanceSymbols of Status in Global PoliticsSalienceGlobal GovernanceUnited Nations
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 915 - 938
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Clark, Ian, Legitimacy in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 173–189 Google Scholar; Hurrell, Andrew, On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 143–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Larson, Deborah Welch and Shevchenko, Alexei, ‘Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to U.S. Primacy’, International Security, 34:4 (2010), pp. 75–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, Michael C., Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London: Routledge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pouliot, Vincent, ‘Setting status in stone: the negotiation of international institutional privileges’, in T. V. Paul, Deborah Welch Larson, and William C. Wohlforth (eds), Status in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar, ch. 8.

2 See also Huddy, Leonie, ‘From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory’, Political Psychology, 22:1 (2001), pp. 127–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donnelly, Jack, ‘The differentiation of international societies: an approach to structural international theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2011), pp. 151–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Towns, Anne E., Women and States: Norms and Hierarchies in International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The broad concept of status refers to ‘collective beliefs about a given state’s ranking on valued attributes (wealth, coercive capabilities, culture, demographic position, sociopolitical organization, and diplomatic clout).’ Deborah Welch Larson, Paul, T. V., and Wohlforth, William C., ‘Status and world order’, in Paul, Larson, and Wohlforth, Status in World Politics, p. 7 Google Scholar.

4 Paul, Larson, and Wohlforth, Status in World Politics; Larson and Shevchenko, ‘Status seekers’; Clunan, Anne L., The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Deng, Yong, China’s Struggle for Status: the Realignment of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Volgy, Thomas J., Corbetta, Renato, Grant, Keith A., and Baird, Ryan G. (eds), Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wohlforth, William C., ‘Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war’, World Politics, 61:1 (2009), pp. 28–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Onea, Tudor A., ‘Between dominance and decline: Status anxiety and great power rivalry’, Review of International Studies, 40:1 (2014), pp. 125–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Flockhart, Trine (ed.), Socializing Democratic Norms: The Role of International Organizations for the Construction of Europe (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, Alastair Iain, Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980–2000 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Pouliot, ‘Setting status in stone’.

7 Paul, T. V. and Shankar, Mahesh, ‘Status accommodation through institutional means: India’s rise and the global order’, in Paul, Larson, and Wohlforth, Status in World Politics Google Scholar, ch. 7.

8 Catherine Hecht, ‘Inclusiveness and Status in International Organizations: Cases of Democratic Norm Development and Policy Implementation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations’, PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2012; Towns, Women and States; Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, ‘Stigma management in International Relations: Transgressive identities, norms and order in international society’, International Organization, 68:1 (January 2014), p. 151 Google Scholar.

9 GDP as a status dimension has some counterintuitive implications, as some less-developed countries seek to retain LDC status (and access to international aid) in light of vulnerabilities.

10 On status attribution, see Volgy et al., ‘Major powers’ and Volgy, Thomas J., Miller, Jennifer L., Cramer, Jacob, Hauser, Megan, Bezerra, Paul, ‘An exploration into status attribution in international politics’, Occasional Paper Series on Political Science and Public Policy Research (University of Arizona, School of Government and Public Policy, 2013)Google Scholar.

11 Hecht, ‘Inclusiveness and Status in International Organizations’.

12 Wohlforth, ‘Unipolarity’, p. 48; Vincent, R. J., Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 62 Google Scholar; Weiss, Thomas G., Carayannis, Tatiana, Emmerij, Louis, and Jolly, Richard, UN Voices: The Struggle for Development and Social Justice (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), p. 154 Google Scholar.

13 Kelley, Judith, ‘Assessing the complex evolution of norms: the rise of international election monitoring’, International Organization, 62 (2008), p. 230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hyde, Susan, The Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiss et al., UN Voices, pp. 272, 275.

14 See Hyde, Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma.

15 Pouliot, ‘Setting status’; see also Larson, Paul, and Wohlforth, ‘Status and world order’, pp. 20–1.

16 Ludwig, Robin, ‘Free and fair elections: Letting the people decide’, in Jean E. Krasno (ed.), The United Nations: Confronting the Challenges of a Global Society (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), pp. 115–116 Google Scholar.

17 Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

18 Levitsky, Stephen and Way, Lucan, Competitive Authoritarianism: The Origins and Evolution of Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 43–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism, p. 352, emphasis added.

20 Keck and Sikkink, Activists, p. 29; Towns, Women and States, p. 176.

21 Wlezien, Christopher, ‘On the salience of political issues: the problem with “most important problem”’, Electoral Studies, 24 (2005), pp. 555–579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bélanger, Éric and Meguid, Bonnie M., ‘Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice’, Electoral Studies, 27 (2008), pp. 477–491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Oakes, Penelope, ‘The salience of social categories’, in John C. Turner (ed.), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), p. 119 Google Scholar; Turner, John C., ‘A self-categorization theory’, in Turner (ed.), Rediscovering the Social Group, p. 54 Google Scholar.

23 See Barreto, Manuela and Ellemers, Naomi, ‘The effects of being categorized: the interplay between internal and external social identities’, European Review of Social Psychology, 14:1 (2003), pp. 155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 159, 163.

24 Laffey, Mary and Weldes, Jutta, ‘Beyond belief: Ideas and symbolic technologies in the study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 3:2 (1997), p. 216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 van Knippenberg, Ad and Ellemers, Naomi, ‘Strategies in intergroup relations’, in Michael A. Hogg and Dominic Abrams (eds), Group Motivation (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993), p. 19 Google Scholar.

26 See Towns, ‘Women and states’.

27 Newman, Edward and Rich, Roland (eds), The UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Haack, Kirsten, The United Nations Democracy Agenda: A Conceptual History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hecht, Inclusiveness and Status in International Organizations.

28 Clark, ‘Legitimacy’, pp. 173–89; Pouliot, ‘Setting status’; Hurrell, ‘On global order’.

29 Bourdieu, Pierre, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 18 Google Scholar.

30 Hurd, Ian, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 59 Google Scholar.

31 Turner, ‘Self-categorization theory’, p. 55; Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’, pp. 130–2.

32 Larson, and Shevchenko, , ‘Status seekers’, p. 72 Google Scholar; See also Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C., ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in Stephen Worchel and William Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1986), p. 19 Google Scholar.

33 See Larson and Shevchenko, ‘Status seekers’, pp. 71–5, 66–7; Tajfel and Turner, ‘Social identity theory’, pp. 19–20.

34 See Larson and Shevchenko, ‘Status seekers’; Tajfel and Turner, ‘Social identity theory’.

35 Larson and Shevchenko, ‘Status seekers’, pp. 71–5, 66–7; Tajfel and Turner, ‘Social identity theory’.

36 Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’, p. 127.

37 See also Ellemers, Naomi and Jetten, Jolanda, ‘The many ways to be marginal in a group’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17:1 (2013), p. 4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 On mimicry in IOs, see Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew, Symbolic Power in the World Trade Organization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 78–80 Google Scholar.

39 Doosje, Bertjan, Spears, Russell, and Ellemers, Naomi, ‘Social identity as both cause and effect: the development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (2002), pp. 57–76 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

40 Doosje et al., ‘Social identity’, p. 57. There are parallels to the logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness. March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

41 Doosje et al. ‘Social identity’, p. 71.

42 Huddy, ‘Political to social identity’, pp. 133–4.

43 Finnemore, Martha, ‘Legitimacy, hypocrisy, and the social structure of unipolarity: Why being a unipole isn’t all it’s cracked up to be’, World Politics, 61:1 (2009), pp. 58–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’, pp. 120–1.

45 Doosje et al., ‘Social identity’, p. 59; Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’, pp. 120–1.

46 Belanger and Meguid, ‘Issue salience’; van Dick, Rolf, Wagner, Ulrich, Stellmacher, Jost, and Christ, Oliver, ‘Category salience and organizational identification’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78 (2005), pp. 273–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huddy, ‘Social to political identity’, p. 148.

47 Brewer, Marilynn B. and Miller, Norman, Intergroup Relations (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996), p. 24 Google ScholarPubMed; Huddy ‘Social to political identity’, p. 148; Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’.

48 Van Dick et al., ‘Category salience’, p. 275.

49 Hecht, Inclusiveness and Status in International Organizations; Legler, Thomas F., ‘The shifting sands of regional governance: the case of inter-American democracy promotion’, Politics and Policy, 40:5 (2012), pp. 848–870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On regional groups in the UN, see Panke, Diana, Unequal Actors in Equalizing Institutions: Negotiations in the United Nations General Assembly (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Adler-Nissen ‘Stigma management’, pp. 143–76.

51 Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, pp. 76–7.

52 Adler-Nissen, ‘Stigma management’, pp. 143–76.

53 Hyde, Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma.

54 Larson and Shevchenko, ‘Status seekers’; Clunan, Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence; Deng, China’s Struggle for Status; Wolf, Reinhard, ‘Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 105–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Markey, Daniel, ‘Prestige and the origins of war: Returning to realism’s roots’, Security Studies, 8:4 (1999), pp. 126–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace, Michael David, War and Rank among Nations (Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company, 1973)Google Scholar, among others.

55 Wolf, ‘Respect’, p. 119; Wallace ‘War and rank’, p. 19.

56 These statements numbered 147 in 1982; 167 in 1992; 178 in 1994; 181 in 1996; 179 in 1998; 177 in 2000; 187 in 2002; 190 in 2004; 191 in 2006; 190 in 2008; 186 in 2010; 192 in 2012; and 191 in 2014.

57 Provisional Verbatim Records of UNGA General Debates, New York. 1982: A/37/PV.5-35; 1992: A/47/PV.4-30; 1994: A/49/PV.4-28; 1996: A/51/PV.4-30; 1998: A/53/PV.7-26; 2000: A/55/PV.10-28; 2002: A/57/PV.2-19; 2004: A/59/PV.3-17; 2006: A/61/PV.10-23; 2008: A/63/PV.5-16; 2010: A/65/PV.11-24; 2012: A/67/PV.6-21; 2014: A/69/PV.6-20, available at: {http://documents.un.org/}.

58 GA Resolution 55/96, ‘Promoting and Consolidating Democracy’; CHR Resolutions 1999/57 and 2000/47.

59 Provisional Verbatim Records of UNGA General Debates, available at: {http://documents.un.org/}. See footnote, Figure 1.

60 Source for democracy rankings was Freedom House, Freedom in the World index, with recognition of the data’s methodological limitations. See Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkeuilen, Jay, ‘Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices’, Comparative Political Studies, 35:1 (2002), pp. 5–34 Google Scholar. Breakdown corresponds to their categories of ‘free’, ‘partly free’, and ‘not free’. Potential biases in Freedom House data, paradoxically, would not harm the current analysis because of the focus on status; this data potentially reflect perceptions of established democratic states, the US in particular, of the democratic standing of UN member states. Since this analysis required data on each UN member state, it was impossible to use Polity IV, which did not collect data for states with populations under 500,000. Available at: {https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world}, Individual Country Rankings and Status, FIW, last accessed Sept. 2015.

61 The UN General Assembly’s official regional groups were used for disaggregation. Available at {http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml}, last accessed Mar. 2016.

62 Wlezien, ‘Salience of political issues’.

63 Wlezien, ‘Salience of political issues’.

65 Statements in category 6 may overlap with others. In very few instances, statements with no mention of ‘democracy’ were nevertheless also coded as containing references to ongoing domestic democratic reforms or support for democracy in their foreign policy if warranted by the specific context. For example, a few such statements were included in categories 3 or 4 only if nearly synonymous terms such as electoral and constitutional political reforms conveyed a meaning synonymous to democracy and were mentioned in conjunction with fundamental democratic components, for example, when accompanied by the idea that the will of the people should serve as the basis of the authority of government. The quantitative analysis of the number of democracy mentions presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 did not include these synonymous terms.

64 Provisional Verbatim Records of UNGA General Debates, available at: {http://documents.un.org/}. See footnote, Figure 1.

66 UNGA, A/47/PV.29, New York, 7 October 1992, pp. 63–5.

67 UNGA, A/59/PV.11, New York, 27 September 2004, p. 16.

68 UNGA, A/51/PV.14, New York, 30 September 1996, pp. 14–16

69 UNGA, A/61/PV.14, New York, 21 September 2006, p. 29.

70 Hawkins, Darren and Shaw, Carolyn M., ‘The OAS and legalizing norms of democracy’, in Thomas Legler, Sharon F. Lean, and Dexter S. Boniface (eds), Promoting Democracy in the Americas (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 31–38 Google Scholar.

71 UNGA, A/51/PV.6, New York, 24 September 1996, pp. 6–7.

72 UNGA, A/47/PV.18, New York, 30 September 1992, p. 61.

73 A few statements were categorised as expressing more than one interest. Seeking a non-permanent Security Council, ECOSOC, or Human Rights Council seat might also affect states’ use (or non-use) of status-related democracy rhetoric in this forum, although no clearly discernable patterns were detected in this data.

74 UNGA, A/55/PV.23, New York, 19 September 2000, p. 20.

75 UNGA, A/57/PV.13, New York, 17 September 2002, p. 15.

76 See Strange, Austin, Parks, Bradley, Tierney, Michael J., Andreas Fuchs, Axel Dreher, and Vijaya Ramachandran, ‘China’s development finance to Africa: a media-based approach to data collection (2013)Google Scholar, available at: {http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/chinese-development-finance-africa_0.pdf} accessed October 2015.

77 UNGA, A/65/PV.12, New York, 23 September 2010, p. 28.

78 UNGA, A/61/PV.11, New York, 19 September 2006, p. 30.

79 Doosje et al., ‘Social identity’, pp. 68, 71.

80 UNGA, A/69/PV.7, New York, 24 September 2014, p. 14.

81 Provisional Verbatim Records of UNGA General Debates, available at: {http://documents.un.org/}. See footnote, Figure 1.

82 See footnote, Figure 3a.

83 The UN General Assembly’s official regional groups were used for disaggregation. See footnote, Figure 3b.

84 Ludwig, ‘Free and fair’.

85 UNGA, A/47/PV.10, New York, 24 September 1992, p. 18.

86 CHR Resolution 2000/47.

87 A/RES/55/96; see also HRC Resolution 19/36.

88 UNGA, A/67/PV.13, New York, 27 September 2012, pp. 4–5.

89 See Doosje et al., ‘Social identity’, p. 59; Oakes, ‘Salience of social categories’, pp. 120–1.

90 Barreto and Ellemers, ‘Effects of being categorized’, p. 142.

91 Ibid., p. 155.