Empirical findings about political behaviour cast doubt on prevailing theories of democracy. The overwhelming majority of democratic theories either implicitly or explicitly imply the necessity of widespread public participation. However, this involvement is more frequently referred to as public participation in the democratic process than as popular support. This paper questions if democracy can even be discussed without considering how popular support affects democracy. According to research, a healthy democracy system will give people a bigger say in deciding on the important issues that affect their lives. To react to the needs and views of their populace, democracies all over the world need a more robust democratic theoretic model of democracy measurement, which includes a normative criterion of popular support for democracy. Democracy should be viewed as requiring widespread support in order to be defined as democratic.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / The United States has spent over $2 billion during the last six years to reconstruct and stabilize Afghanistan through the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP). This effort is only one of several simultaneous programs attempting to stabilize Afghanistan using approaches including providing humanitarian aid, education, government and security reform, and construction. Construction often involves simple infrastructure development with tangible benefits including increased access, growing commerce and better security. Construction projects can also employ the local population and, if done correctly, develop a sense of community and social capital. What causes construction projects to miss the mark failing to result in creating a stable community? This research compares four different construction programs including CERP, National Solidarity Program (NSP), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) to determine their potential impact on Afghan stability. It uses a combination of statistical regression, correlation, geospatial and temporal analysis to compare completed construction with recorded SIGACTs (Significant Acts) reported by U.S. forces and NGOs. The results imply that the identified stabilization programs are not using construction effectively to create social capital and stability.

The following dissertation develops a theoretical framework for guiding the strategy of democratic states in successfully countering the hostilities of nationalistic substate terrorist organizations (NSTOs), and effectively manipulating the terrorist group’s (and its supporting elements’) decision-making calculus. In particular, the theory of strategic coercion has been chosen as a basis for formulating this framework, based upon: 1) the invaluable guidance it offers in dynamically drawing upon all instruments of national power—economic, diplomatic, military, etc.—to accomplish politico-strategic objectives; and 2) the unique insights it provides into making strategic moves aimed at influencing the choices taken by an adversary. However, strategic coercion theory as it currently stands is inadequate for applications against substate terrorist organizations. As a quintessential cornerstone for prescriptive policy in strategic studies, such a looming deficiency vis-à-vis one the most important security threats of the modern age is unacceptable. The new theoretical framework established in this dissertation—entitled the Balance Theory of strategic coercion—addresses this deficiency. The Balance Theory stresses that three key coercive elements of strategic coercion are fundamentally important for successfully ending the hostilities posed by NSTOs, being: A) Isolation of external/international support; B) Denial; and C) Isolation of popular support. It posits that these three aspects of strategic coercion serve as the sine qua non for success in countering an NSTO’s campaign of violence and effectively manipulating its decision-making process. Implementation of these three elements, moreover, must be pursued in tandem, taking care so as not to sacrifice one aspect for the other. The Balance Theory is tested through the employment of case-study analysis. In pursuing this end, both cross-case and within-case analyses are performed, accompanied by the utilization of the methods of focused, structured comparison. The cases examined are those of: 1) The United Kingdom versus Republican NSTOs (1969-2007); and 2) Israel versus Palestinian NSTOs (1967-present). The dissertation concludes with an examination of how the Balance Theory may provide insights for the formulation of counter-terrorism strategy against Al Qaeda in the current "War on Terror".