Discuss the relationship between democracies that intervene with other nations around the world and the likelihood that such interventions will yield a new democracy.

What will be an ideal response?

Ans: A democracy intervening on behalf of another regime for the purpose of creating a new democracy is usually not part of the reason for intervention in the first place. Democracies that carry out intervention may state publicly that they wish to build a new democracy, but the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Application of the selectorate theory to this relationship explains why intervention is bad for democratic institution building for the target regime. The four main variables are the 1. Intervention leaders, 2. Intervention constituency, 3. Target leaders, and 4. Target constituency. Assuming the intervener is democratic with a large winning coalition, any and all benefits of an intervention must be delivered in the form of public goods to both the intervention leaders and the intervention constituency. Typically, delivery of public goods must happen quickly. Hence, it is in the best interest of the intervener to allow a post intervention peace to take the form of a puppet democracy. This way any installed leaders in the target nation can more efficiently deliver policy concessions to the intervening nations leaders and constituency. In return, the leadership will likely be allowed to lead so long as they continue furnishing a policy concession to the intervener. The group that loses in this game is the target constituency. The only way a democracy might intervene on behalf of another nation for the sole purpose of creating a democracy is if the intervener’s leaders and constituents see the cost of intervention as worthy of creating the democracy itself. Such may be the case when it comes to the United States and the creation of Israel.