The shifting salience of democratic governance: Evidence from the United Nations General Assembly General Debates

Abstract

How has the salience of democratic governance varied as an issue and as a basis of social status in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over time? International Relations (IR) scholars typically assume a high salience of democratic governance in international society after the Cold War, yet evidence suggests important fluctuations and that these assumptions should be qualified. This article presents quantitative and qualitative results of a manually-coded content analysis of the UNGA General Debates between 1992 and 2014, with comparison to 1982, illustrating variation in the frequency and content of state representatives’ references to democracy and the use of democratic governance as a symbol of status. What factors influence the salience of a given dimension of social status in an international organisation? Explanations supplement IR approaches with insights from social psychology, including the relevance of high and low identifiers, accessibility, fit, current and anticipated group status, and regional status concerns. The article analyses trends in states’ support for principles underpinning international order, which have broader implications for literature on global governance and status in world politics as well as for international democracy support.

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

“…This is why it is important to consider alternative methodological approaches to the study of Canada in the UNGA. CFP scholars interested in how Canada positions itself vis-à-vis other states might consider content-analyzing official statements issued during the General Debates (Hecht, 2016; Baturo et al, 2017), much as Paquin and Beauregard (2013) did in their study of international crisis statements between 2004 and 2011. More interpretively oriented CFP scholars could do the same using discourse analysis.…”

Understanding state preferences with text as data: Introducing the UN General Debate corpus

“…Scholars have long recognised that ‘member states present themselves exclusively in the guise in which they wish to be known’ during these annual debates (Nicholas, 1959: 98). In fact, a key purpose of the GD is that it provides governments with the opportunity to ‘influence international perceptions of their state, aiming to position their states favorably, as well as to influence the perception of other states’ (Hecht, 2016: 10). Therefore, governments use GD speeches strategically to signal their preferences among the community of states.…”

When democratic governance unites and divides: Social status and contestation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

“…Yet this literature has often analyzed social contexts other than formal international organizations. Of studies that examine aspects of social stratification in formal IOs (Pouliot, 2014, 2016; Eagleton-Pierce, 2013; Fehl and Freistein, 2015; Flockhart, 2005; Hecht, 2012, 2016a; Johnston, 2008; Paul and Shankar, 2014; Schulz, 2017; Viola et al, 2015), most have focused on issues other than democracy and human rights, or on IOs other than the OSCE, and more empirical research is needed on historical trends in the evolution of social hierarchies in multilateral diplomacy over time.…”

“… 4 I follow Larson and Shevchenko (2010), Mercer (1995), Wohlforth (2009), and others who have demonstrated the value of social–psychological insights in international politics and have argued that it is the role of empirical research to clarify the significance of these insights for international relations (Wolf, 2011: 119; Wallace, 1973: 11–13, 19; Hecht, 2016a: 924). …”