Description
Since the end of the Cold War, a growing number of regional organisations (ROs) around the world have formally adhered to democracy as common norm and have adopted institutionalised mechanisms to protect it, often referred to as democracy clauses. Yet, their mere existence does not tell us much about the actual application of those clauses in response to democratic erosion or breakdown. Regional democracy clauses are often political declarations, and even if legally binding, their application is highly inconsistent and politicised. Based on empirical research on ROs in Latin America and a comparative assessment of evidence from Europe and Africa, this paper explores why ROs so often find themselves at an impasse concerning the application of their democracy clauses. I argue that the application of democracy clauses and thus the mitigation of democratic crises is often impeded by norm contestations over the meaning of democracy and power contestations between states in the region, both of which fuel the politicisation of decision-making within ROs. At the same time, politicisation is reinforced by deficiencies in the institutional design of democracy clauses, creating a vicious circle.
