Abstract
20th century has witnessed two terrible and startling World Wars, one Cold War and many regional conflicts; however, humanity has never experienced any age of insecurity after the end of Cold War. Since there were many rouge and failed states around at the period, democratization in line with modernization were inseperable brother-in-arms in order to balance the world in security terms. While this was the main goal of unilateral American politics in a single-polar world order, nevertheless, a new age of insecurity in hand-to-hand with terrorism had arisen in the horizon. Then, it was crystal-clear that a wish for the security of the future caused a doubtfull future for security. Because inseperable democratization and modernization seemed to be getting apart due to the malicious effects of a terrorized future. Since terrorism any kind was the main threat to secure world order, it occupied humand minds as more vast and complex than any other issue. The good news was that ever since representative democracy first emerged, it has been spreading, pushed forward by the forces of modernization. However, the news are not good anymore; because we are, no doubt, nearer to a time of insecurity when a clear conflicting relationship among democratization, modernization and terrorization is at hand inevitably. So, there is a present crisis in democracy in the world since the future of democracy is not preordained. The main aim of this study is to explore how again in the future and how long its success or failure will depend on whether modernization will resist terrorism by ensuring the benefits of widely-shared rising prosperity.
Keywords: Democracy, Promotion, Security, Modernization, Terrorism, Conflicting Objectives.
“What is good and essential about this country is the [democratically made] law itself. It has evolved over centuries from medieval barbarities into something, for all its faults, that is civilised. Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anyone who does not accept it does not belong here.“ (Marrin, 2008)
Introduction
Not all good things go together in the age of insecurity due to conflicting objectives of relations between democratization, modernization and terrorization on a ‘conflicting’ style. Conflicting objectives are often problematized as challenges to the effectiveness of international peace promotion. However, systematic research about their emergence and effects is still missing. This study will try to address this research gap and seek to provide conceptual and empirical answers in the field of conflicting objectives in international peace promotion in an age of insecurity. Exploring and putting forth of the emergence and consequences of conflicting objectives in democracy promotion is crucial. It pursues two aims: (1) to systematize significant conflicts of objectives in democracy promotion (conceptual dimension), and (2) to analyse these conflicts of objectives in order to explore their origins and their consequences for the effectiveness of democracy promotion (empirical dimension) (Grimm and Leininger, 2012: 391).
Conflicting objectives are inherent in any kind of policy-making and cooperation between two or more actors. Scholars and practitioners widely acknowledge that conflicting objectives challenge the effectiveness of democracy promotion (Burnell, 2004: 112). Any target country of democracy promotion will find itself facing a multitude of international actors pursuing divergent interests and goals. Consequently, the objective of democratization is likely to compete with alternative objectives of foreign policy of the various international actors. At times, the same actor can simultaneously attempt to pursue competing objectives. The individual nature of the paths that democratization can follow aggravates this complex situation further. In general, democratization does not follow a universal pattern that could serve as a guideline for facilitation of external support. Accordingly, there is no blueprint for successful democracy promotion. In each individual case, democracy promoters must rethink how, when, and by what means democratization can be supported (Grimm and Leininger, 2012: 392).
