The internal face of the garrison state: A comparison of United States and Russian internal security institutions and policy, 1900--2004

This dissertation examines the internal security apparatus of states, and the conditions under which its scope and capacity wax and wane. Specifically, I ask how external conflict (including war and terrorism) effects the internal security apparatus of the state, and whether the process is similar across different regime types. To answer this question I examine the development of the internal security apparatus in two states, the United States and Russia, from 1900 to 2004.; I argue that while regime type may affect the intensity of the use of coercion, the persistent growth in the capacity of the internal security apparatus does not significantly vary across regime type. It may seem counterintuitive that the capacity to coerce or repress exhibits similar patterns of expansion regardless of the type of regime. However, in my detailed examination of the United States and Russia the coercive capacity of each of these states exhibits similar patterns of growth. The primary difference among these states is the focus of internal security activity (whether the state concentrates on the control of criminal or dissident populations), and the intensity of internal security activity, whether or not violence is used to control the subject population.; In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the internal security implications of the "wars on terror" of the United States, Russia, and other states, an examination of the effect of the internal security apparatus on the institutions of governance, civil society, and human rights is vital. The institutions of internal security, or the internal face of the "garrison state," are the institutions most resistant to democratization and may hinder the development of healthy and active civil societies and citizenry. If democratization stalls or is reversed, it could intensify conflict throughout the globe. The "democratic peace" may prove to be a mirage if internal security institutions and policies are not subjected to the rule of law and openness in every state.