Is Territorial Integrity Required for Democracy? Evidence from Kurdish Autonomy

• In Event: Poster Session: Democracy & Autocracy

Abstract

Why are there separatist enclaves that are more democratic than their host states? Territorial disputes are often assumed to have a negative effect on the prospects for democratization and democratic consolidation. Is this true for sub-national non-state actors pursuing statehood or autonomy? While the territorial question is supposed to have been settled prior to democratization, some dispute this assertion by arguing that the development of sub-national democratic institutions can advance future efforts at democratization and democratic consolidation. This paper proposes a mechanism by which democracy may be fostered: material support from outside of both the sub-national region and the state that is specifically intended to increase participation within the institutions of a group that is involved in a conflict. Two dyads, each consisting of a sub-national administration and their host state, will be examined. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq are the sub-national actors. Tentatively, the paper finds that the outcome of an internal conflict, and, therefore, the resolution (or not) of territoriality, is not as important for sub-national democratization as the breadth of participation (or lack thereof) in externally-backed institutions. Using a mixed methods analysis of sources of material support and Varieties of Democracy data, this paper offers new evidence of sub-national democratic improvement without the resolution of territoriality. Though focusing on Kurdish political groups, there is a possibility for generalization to other separatist movements.

Author

• Michael Pfonner, University of Southern California