Foreign military intervention and democratization: The evidence from Panama, 1960--1994

How does foreign military intervention affect the process of democratization in a developing country? Presidential rhetoric often suggests that merely removing the obstructions to democracy will allow that process to begin or resume.; To test that supposition, I present one case---Panama in 1989---in which the United States invaded a foreign land in order to remove a military government and "defend democracy." From written accounts and formal interviews in Panama, I develop narratives describing political events and socioeconomic trends during the six presidential campaigns from 1960 through 1994.; Trends over time in several "indicators of democracy"---descriptors of both political and socioeconomic democracy---suggest that U.S. policy makers' claims of success for intervention in Panama were only partially substantiated. Despite the U.S. invasion the picture of Panamanian democratization has remained mixed. Political analysts' worst fears have not been realized, as the two postintervention governments have neither collapsed into anarchy nor degenerated into authoritarianism. However, political institutions remain weak; and socioeconomic problems, such as widespread poverty and inequality, are actually worsening. Panama displays democratic institutions to the world, but still lacks much of its substance.; This dissertation argues that military intervention cannot meet all the goals that U.S. policy makers have set for it. Force can be effective in removing the obstacles to democracy and even in restoring democratic forms of government. But force cannot effect the resumption of democratization. This last phenomenon is found to depend on domestic conditions and events---such as political legitimacy, leadership, or participation---so the activities of external actors can only create an environment favorable to their development. At most, democratization constitutes an indirect result of military intervention.; Furthermore, my analysis shows that defining democratization in purely political terms, as U.S. policy makers sometimes do, obscures certain reasons for its long-term success or failure. Socioeconomic conditions color citizens' evaluations of their political system and determine who has the resources to exercise their citizenship rights. When socioeconomic democracy is ignored, political democracy loses support or becomes limited to a narrow segment of the population.