Since 1974, a "third wave" of global democratization has dramatically increased the number of democracies.6 If we choose as our operational standard of democracy the presence of a civilian, constitutional, multiparty regime, with competitive elections, one could count as many as 114 "democracies" in the world at the end of 1994.7 This is almost twice the number of formal democracies that existed in 1984.8 If, however, we insist on looking beyond constitutional form and even electoral conduct, and consider as well real levels of political freedom and civil liberties, a different picture emerges. In its annual survey of freedom in the world for 1994, Freedom House counted 76 countries as "free."9 This is a substantial increase from 42 in 1972 and 53 in 1985. According to Freedom House's criteria, however, a third of the formal democracies in the world (38) do not rate as "free" because the power of democratically elected leaders is seriously constrained by unaccountable groups, particularly the military (as in Pakistan, Turkey, and Guatemala); because political and ethnic violence limit individual freedom and undermine the integrity of political competition (as in India, Colombia, and El Salvador); or because the actual performance and accountability of formal democratic institutions pushes the quality of political competition, representation, organization, and/or expression below a critical threshold (as in Venezuela, the Philippines, and Zambia). Clearly, there is a large gap between democratic form and reality in the world, and this has serious implications for the challenge of consolidating democracy. Consolidation--the process by which democracy becomes so stable, so deeply institutionalized, and so broadly legitimate among all major political forces that it is highly unlikely to break down for any internal reason--must be the ultimate goal of international efforts to promote democracy.
I use the term "democracy" as roughly equivalent to Dahl's "polyarchy," or "liberal democracy." This encompasses not only a civilian, constitutional, multiparty regime, with regular, free, and fair elections and universal suffrage, but organizational and informational pluralism; extensive civil liberties (freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organizations); effective power for elected officials; and functional autonomy for legislative, executive, and judicial organs of government.10
Important normative and political issues are at stake in the way we define democracy. If we rest content to promote the mere constitutional form of democracy, pressure for democratization will cease once the structural form is put in place, and assistance may go mainly to strengthen formal institutions and assist economic reform and development. Those are necessary objectives for democratization, but they are not sufficient. In a great many "near-democracies" and partial, "poor," "low-quality," or struggling democracies, democratic capacities must also be strengthened outside the formal system, in civil society, and the international community must continue to pay attention to problems of military domination and impunity and of ongoing political violence and human rights violations. Such an analytical and strategic approach implies a different and more comprehensive mix of democracy promotion programs. It also directs attention to countries whose political systems might, with a more superficial conception of democracy, be considered too "advanced" or established to warrant international attention and assistance.
This essay proceeds in three principal sections. First, it surveys the wide range of national and multinational actors now engaged in democracy assistance and identifies some of their distinctive advantages and limitations. (This survey makes no pretense of comprehensiveness, as there are now so many actors, private and public, bilateral and multilateral, that any kind of thorough coverage would require a team of researchers to assemble a very large book.) Second, it considers the principal policy instruments for democracy promotion, including diplomacy and aid conditionality, and analyzes some of the problems and opportunities that arise with their usage. In conclusion, I consider several issues and imperatives--communication, coordination, consistency, and coherence among actors--that will help to determine the effectiveness of democracy promotion efforts.