ABSTRACT
Recent commentaries in widely circulated periodicals suggest the answer is ‘Yes’, at least among some intellectuals. For instance, Robert Kaplan and Fareed Zakaria, writing in The Atlantic Monthly and Foreign Affairs respectively, argue that many new post-Cold War democracies represent transitional stages in their countries’ historical experiences.1 New democracies are often weak and corrupt weigh stations on the road to chaos and secession. Among other things, Kaplan notes that the populations of many Third World democracies are composed disproportionately of young unemployed males, a group which is both highly susceptible to violence (the new democratic South Africa is among the most violent places on earth) and likely to support extremist solutions in the arena of electoral politics. And Zakaria adds:
Elections require that politicians compete for peoples’ votes. In societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, it is easiest to organize along racial, ethnic, or
religious lines. Once in power, an ethnic group tends to exclude other ethnic groups. Compromise seems impossible; one can bargain on material issues like housing, hospitals, and handouts, but how does one split the difference on a national religion? Such political competition rapidly degenerates into violence ...2
