Replication data for: Intervention and Democracy

Recent events have raised questions about the extent to which military intervention promotes democracy and the degree to which this depends on the nature of the intervener. We argue that traction on these issues is best obtained by focusing on the policies of the target state that have the greatest implications for the political survival of the intervening state's leader and the kind of governmental institutions in the target state that are most likely to produce them. This perspective generally—although not always—predicts that third-party military intervention in civil wars, other intra- or interstate disputes and wars will lead to little if any improvement, and all too often erosion in the trajectory of democratic development. Three hypotheses on the impact of third-party intervention by democracies, autocracies, and the United Nations are then tested and strongly supported against a counterfactual expectation of what the democratic trajectory would have been in the absence of intervention

近期事件引发了关于军事干预在多大程度上促进民主，以及这一效果在多大程度上取决于干预方性质的疑问。我们认为，要深入探讨这些问题，最佳方式是聚焦于目标国那些对干预国领导人政治存续具有最大影响的政策，以及目标国中最可能催生此类政策的政府制度类型。这一视角通常（尽管并非总是）预测，第三方军事干预内战、其他国内或国家间争端及战争，将几乎不会带来民主发展轨迹的改善，反而往往导致其倒退。随后，针对民主国家、专制国家及联合国的第三方干预影响提出的三个假设，通过与“无干预情况下民主发展轨迹会如何”这一反事实预期对比检验，得到了强有力的支持。