Is Geography Destiny for Democracy?

Arsenii Kazymyr, Mykhailo Bronytskyi, Teodor Muzychuk, Bohdan Mahometa

June 18, 2024

Abstract
This research proposal investigates the pivotal question: ”Is Geography Destiny for Democ-
racy?” It endeavors to delve into the intricate relationship between a nation’s geographical char-
acteristics and the processes of democratization. Geographical attributes, encompassing terrain,
climate, natural resources, and geopolitical positioning, have long been hypothesized to wield sig-
nificant influence over the establishment and consolidation of democratic systems within nations.
By conducting a multifaceted analysis that amalgamates historical case studies, comparative ex-
aminations, and an evaluation of external influences, this study aims to illuminate the nuanced
interplay between geography and democratization. By delineating correlations, identifying causa-
tions, and discerning exceptions, the research endeavors to offer a comprehensive understanding of
how geographical factors either facilitate or hinder the development and sustenance of democratic
governance. The implications derived from this investigation are expected to contribute sub-
stantially to shaping effective policies aimed at fostering democratization in diverse geographical
contexts worldwide.

1 Introduction
In our extensive exploration at the nexus of geography and democratization, we embark on a multi-
faceted investigation aiming to unravel the intricate ties between physical geography and governance
systems. With a focus on illuminating the dynamics of democratization within the context of spatial
relationships, our research endeavors to answer critical inquiries shaping this complex interplay.
Our endeavor involves an exhaustive literature review that encapsulates the divergent perspectives
surrounding the influence of geography on democratization. Over the years, a schism has emerged
in scholarly discourse, with divergent opinions regarding the significance of geographical proximity
to established centers of democracy. While some contend that physical closeness to democratic hubs
predicts a nation’s path toward democratic governance, others argue that this correlation is less de-
terministic or may be influenced by a myriad of additional factors.
Furthermore, our exploration extends to the impact of neighboring nations’ political regimes on a
country’s governance structure. This facet of our research delves into the discourse on spatial correla-
tion between governance types among contiguous nations, seeking to discern whether this association
is rooted in causal factors or exhibits mere spatial coincidence.
Our endeavor also extends to exploring the historical trend of democratization and whether it
showcases an incremental spatial pattern. Understanding the historical proliferation of democracy and
its potential connection to geographic proximity to established democratic centers forms a critical part
of our investigation.
Additionally, our research incorporates a comprehensive modeling of the influence wielded by a
country’s intrinsic geographical characteristics on its political landscape. By scrutinizing the impact
of diverse geographical features such as terrain, climate, water bodies, and more, we aim to delineate
the extent to which these factors shape a nation’s governance structure.
By amalgamating diverse scholarly perspectives and leveraging an extensive literature review, our
research endeavors to unravel the multifaceted relationship between geography and democratization,
offering nuanced insights into the spatial dynamics that underpin the evolution of governance systems.

1
2 Literature review
In the realm of understanding democratization, a compelling debate emerges regarding the significance
of geography in shaping this intricate process. While some scholars advocate for the pivotal role of
geography in influencing democratization dynamics, others contend that its impact is comparatively
marginal. This dichotomy of opinions underscores a fundamental discourse within academic circles,
debating the extent to which geographical factors contribute to the evolution of democratic ideals
and practices. This section delves into this dichotomy, aiming to explore and analyze the divergent
perspectives surrounding the influence of geography on democratization. Through an examination of
contrasting viewpoints, it seeks to unravel the multifaceted relationship between geography and the
complex landscape of democratization processes.

2.1 Small effect opinion

[Barnett and Low, 2004] said that the influence of geography is minor. The discourse around the
geographical manifestation of democracy interrogates not just its presence but its essence. Scholars
navigate the varied landscapes where democracy ostensibly dwells, questioning its representation and
functionality in different spaces. The central argument posits that defining democracy by its geographi-
cal presence encounters complexities that extend beyond mere physical borders. It explores the nuances
of democratic practices within diverse socio-political contexts, emphasizing that democracy’s vitality
is not confined to particular geographical locales but is dynamic and multifaceted across global ter-
rains. Democratic theory grapples with implicit geographical assumptions that shape its foundational
concepts. Scholars critically examine the conceptions of borders, boundaries, and territoriality within
democratic discourse, highlighting the oversight of these geographical considerations in theoretical
frameworks. They emphasize the importance of confronting and integrating geographical imaginations
into democratic theory, bridging the gap between the spatial complexities elucidated in geographical
research and the traditional notions of democratic politics. This section underscores the need to align
geographical insights with democratic theory, acknowledging the interconnectedness between spatial
dynamics and democratic governance. The discussion surrounding spaces of difference and universal-
ism delves into the tension between universalizing norms and cultural particularities within democratic
frameworks. Scholars critique the challenge that liberalism faces in accommodating cultural diversity
and argue against the presumed homogeneity of universal democratic principles. This section advocates
for reinterpreting universalism by emphasizing openness to diverse perspectives rather than striving
for uniformity. It encourages a nuanced understanding of democracy that embraces cultural variability
while upholding fundamental values, presenting a vision of universalism rooted in respect for difference
and openness to diverse viewpoints. The exploration of spaces within the realm of democracy extends
beyond mere physicality, contemplating the intricacies of democratic practices, institutions, and actors
across diverse arenas. Scholars scrutinize the dimensions of democratic participation, the intricacies
of electoral processes, and the spatial arrangements that shape democratic governance. This section
highlights the multifaceted nature of democratic spaces, encompassing not only the physical settings
where democracy operates but also the social, cultural, and institutional landscapes that define and
reshape democratic practices.

2.2 Big impact opinion

[Murphy and (U.S.), 1993] have another position. Understanding democratization necessitates an in-
terdisciplinary approach that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. The amalgamation of
democratic principles with global socio-political transformations demands a nuanced perspective. This
interdisciplinary lens enables scholars to scrutinize the intricate nature of political, social, and environ-
mental complexities within the democratization process. By integrating various disciplinary interests,
from territoriality to spatial structures and human-environment relations, researchers gain a holistic un-
derstanding of the multifaceted forces influencing democratization. Such an interdisciplinary approach
becomes pivotal in comprehending the evolving dynamics of democratization across different spatial
scales and contexts. Geography’s pivotal role in unraveling democratization’s intricacies is undeniable.
The discipline’s emphasis on spatial organization, territorial dynamics, and human-environment rela-
tionships offers an illuminating perspective on political transformations. Through territoriality studies,
spatial analyses, and human-environment investigations, geographers unravel the multifaceted layers

2
of democratization. This contribution underscores the significance of geographical perspectives in un-
covering the intricate links between political, social, and environmental facets of democratization. As
such, prioritizing geographical research remains fundamental in advancing our comprehension of the
complexities inherent in the democratization process. Embracing a geographical lens is imperative in
comprehending the multifaceted nature of democratization. The evolving political landscape demands
a reorientation from conventional frameworks towards a comprehensive perspective. Geographical in-
sights, derived from territoriality, spatial analyses, and human-environment relations, offer profound
understandings of democratization. This perspective reveals the interconnectedness between political
structures, societal arrangements, and environmental influences. By intertwining geographical dimen-
sions with democratization studies, researchers gain a deeper comprehension of the intricate forces
shaping global political transformations.

2.3 Real researches

[Lankina and Getachew, 2007] give an example of how geography inflicts democratisation in post-soviet
countries. The democratization dynamics within post-communist Russia illuminate the significance
of sub-national regions in shaping this transformative process. The proximity of regions to West-
ern borders emerges as a crucial factor facilitating the infusion of Western influences and fostering
increased openness and democratic practices. Notably, both frontier and more remote regions, in-
cluding Western Siberia, benefit from targeted EU aid when receptive to external influences. This
underscores the EU’s endeavor to reward regions displaying democratic progress, extending aid ef-
forts beyond potential member states. However, the influence of external players on regions bordering
Russia’s Southern and Eastern frontiers remains diverse, given the absence of established democracies
in neighboring regions like China and limited democratization efforts by Japan. The aid activities
by major ”non-neighbor” donors, such as the US and Canada, demonstrate a trend of supporting
institutionally developed actors aligned with Western practices. Despite the aspirations for democracy
promotion, these Western aid projects often encounter challenges and aren’t uniformly successful in
achieving their intended outcomes. The sustained efforts by Western actors aligning with more open
and Western-oriented regions exacerbate spatial disparities in democracy levels, contributing to shap-
ing regional democratization trajectories. However, it’s crucial to recognize that Western aid doesn’t
singularly determine regional democracy levels but instead forms ”clusters of interaction” intertwined
with a region’s geographic location and willingness to embrace external influences. Although the focus
primarily centers on regional dynamics and external actors, the role of the national government in
steering the nationwide democracy trajectory remains pivotal. However, ongoing regional engagement
between Russia and the West challenges an analysis solely biased toward the national sphere. This
regional engagement signifies a complex narrative where regional leaders might view external donors as
genuine partners while the federal government holds a contrasting stance. Moreover, Moscow’s limited
financial inclination to substitute external resources vital for local NGOs’ sustenance underscores the
divergent regional-local dynamics against federal intentions. The geographically conditioned processes
of integration and interaction between Western-oriented localities and Russia present an intricate un-
derstanding of spatial patterns influencing democratization, not only within post-communist nations
but also potentially across global settings. These regional interactions offer insights into nuanced
geographical factors shaping democratization trajectories and can be instrumental in understanding
similar processes beyond post-communist regions.
Can we globalise all of these suggestions? In our research, we want to find out how significant the
influence of geography is and how it can be measured.

3 Research Questions, Objectives, and Contributions

In this research, we formulate a set of fundamental questions aimed at unraveling the intricate interplay
between geography and democratization. Each question is designed to address specific facets of the
spatial dynamics influencing governance systems.

3
Research Question 1
Question: How does the distance to specific places generally known to be ”centers of democracy”
predict the country’s degree of democratization or its trajectory in terms of the type of governance
preference?
Description: This question delves into the spatial dimension of democratization, exploring whether
the geographical proximity to established democratic centers serves as a predictive factor for a nation’s
democratization trajectory. We aim to scrutinize the nuanced relationships between geographic dis-
tance, democratic influences, and the evolution of governance preferences.

Research Question 2
Question: Do neighboring countries’ types of political regimes influence the type of governance of the
given country? Are types of governance correlated spatially? Can we state that the correlation is due
to causation? What are the major points supporting that there is a causal relationship?
Description: This question extends our inquiry to the influence of neighboring nations on a
country’s governance structure. We seek to unravel spatial correlations in governance types, exploring
whether proximity to diverse political regimes plays a causal role. The investigation involves meticulous
analysis of key factors supporting the existence of a causal relationship between spatial proximity and
governance types.

Research Question 3
Question: Considering that the proliferation of democracy was the trend at some point, can we
state that it is explained by the physical proximity to ”centers of democracy”? Is the conversion to
democracy incremental in space?
Description: This question addresses the historical trends of democratization, particularly focus-
ing on whether the spread of democracy exhibits an incremental spatial pattern. By assessing historical
data, we aim to discern the role of geographic proximity to democratic centers in explaining the global
trend toward democracy and whether this process unfolds gradually in space.

Research Question 4
Question: To what extent can we model the influence of the endogenous geographical features of the
country: terrain, climate, bodies of water, mountains, rivers, deserts?
Description: This question emphasizes the intrinsic geographical characteristics of a nation and
their impact on its political landscape. We aim to construct comprehensive models that capture the
influence of diverse geographical features, including terrain, climate, and natural elements, on the
governance structures of countries. The analysis involves a nuanced exploration of how these features
contribute to shaping political trajectories.
By systematically addressing these research questions, our work contributes to a deeper under-
standing of the spatial dimensions influencing democratization processes, offering valuable insights
into the intricate relationship between geography and governance.

4 Research design and methodology

We mostly explore the correlations. It is harder to perform causal analysis due to the absence of
plausible physical or information-theoretical mechanisms for an observed effect to follow from a possible
cause.

4.1 Influence of distance

We make the following hypotheses about the influence of the geographical distance on the countries’
status quo in terms of type of governance:
Hypothesis 1 (H1) Countries closer to Brussels are more democratic.

Hypothesis 2 (H2) Countries closer to Vermont are more democratic.

4
Figure 1: (a) Political Right (PR), 1 is best, 7 is worst. (b) Civil Liberties (CL), 1 is best, 7 is worst.
(c) The compiled democratization score, 0.0 is worst, 1.0 is best

We predict that the first hypotheses hold true. This might be largely due to the fact that the
EU countries, historically democratic, are close to Brussels. Thus, the correlation will be present.
However, it is more interesting to consider the rate of democratization rather than the measure of the
state being democratic.
We make the following hypotheses about the influence of geographical distance on the countries’
democratization rate:
Hypothesis 3 (H3) Countries closer to Brussels get democratic faster.
Hypothesis 4 (H4) Countries closer to Vermont get democratic faster.
Our hypotheses about the influence of geographical distance on the type of governance and de-
mocratization rate are formulated with specific ”centers of democracy” in mind. Hypotheses 1 and 2
assert that countries closer to Brussels and Vermont, respectively, are more democratic. The second
set of hypotheses, 3 and 4, explores the rate of democratization based on proximity to Brussels and
Vermont.
The distance is calculated using OpenStreetMap, and the democratization score is compiled from
FreedomHouse’s PR (Political Rights) and CL (Civil Liberties) scores for 2023. A regression analysis
will be employed, treating distance as a covariate and democratization scores as a response variable.
A significance test will be conducted at a 0.05 significance level. Despite the simplicity of regression
analysis, we acknowledge its limitations, such as the assumption of independence among samples,
which we intend to address in the next part of our analysis.
We aim to accept or reject H1, H2, H3, H4 through regression analysis. We will take the distance
to Brussels/Vermont as a covariate and our developed democratization score or the increase of the
score as a response variable. The distance is calculated based on OpenStreetMap. We compile the
democratization score based on the PR (Political Rights) and CL (Civil Liberties) scores provided by
FreedomHouse in their 2023 report ([Freedom House, 2023]). Figure 1. displays the PR and CL scores
along with our compiled democratization score for year 2023. We average PR and CL and then scale
from 0 to 1 to obtain the democratization score:
(7 − P R)(7 − CL)
D=
12
We will perform a statistical test with 0.05 significance level.
We admit that the proposed approach using regression analysis might not be suitable. First, it
naively assumes the independence of different samples (i.e. countries) from each other. This assumption
might not hold, e.g. neighboring countries might influence each other’s democratization score. In fact,
this is what we will try to check next. We definitely observe some clustering in Figure 1: groups of
countries with the approximately same color intensity.
Hypothesis 5 (H5) Democracy in neighborhood of a country influences the degree of democratization
of the country.
Hypothesis 6 (H6) Rate of democratization in a neighborhood of a country influences the rate of
democratization of the country.

5
 We test H5 and H6 using spatial autocorrelation analysis. We want to check how any country’s
democratization score is correlated with its neighbours’ ones. In order to do that, we utilize Moran’s
I ([Moran, 1950]) tests for global spatial autocorrelation for continuous data:
P P
n i j Wij (xi − x̄)(xj − x̄)
I= P 2
S0 i (xi − x̄)

where xi is the democratization score of the ith country, n is the number of countries, WijPis the
P distance
from ith to jth country and S0 is the sum of the elements of the weight matrix: S0 = i j Wij .
1
A Moran’s I coefficient larger than − n−1 indicates positive spatial autocorrelation, and a Moran’s
1
I less than − n−1 indicates negative spatial autocorrelation. We will transform Moran’s I values to
z-scores and perform a statistical test using 0.05 α-value.

4.2 Influence of Endogenous Features

While geographical distance is a crucial factor, the influence of endogenous features such as terrain,
climate, bodies of water, mountains, rivers, and deserts on democratization also can be significant.
These features can shape the development and stability of political institutions within a region. In
this subsection, we explore hypotheses related to the influence of endogenous geographical features on
the democratization process.

4.2.1 Terrain and Democratization

Hypothesis 7 (H7) Countries with predominantly flat terrain are more likely to be democratic.

Hypothesis 8 (H8) Countries with mountainous terrain are less likely to be democratic.

Terrain can impact the ease of communication, transportation, and accessibility, which, in turn,
may influence the political organization of a country. We hypothesize that countries with flat ter-
rain, facilitating easier interaction and connectivity, are more likely to adopt democratic systems.
Conversely, mountainous terrain may present barriers to communication and integration, potentially
hindering the development of democratic institutions.

4.2.2 Climate and Democratization

Hypothesis 9 (H9) Countries with temperate climates are more likely to be democratic.

Hypothesis 10 (H10) Countries with extreme climates (very hot or very cold) are less likely to be
democratic.

Climate conditions can affect the overall stability and economic development of a country, thereby
influencing its political landscape. We propose that countries with temperate climates, avoiding ex-
treme weather conditions, are more conducive to the establishment and maintenance of democratic
governance.

4.2.3 Bodies of Water, Rivers, and Democratization

Hypothesis 11 (H11) Countries with access to abundant water resources, such as coastlines and
rivers, are more likely to be democratic.

Hypothesis 12 (H12) Countries with limited access to water resources are less likely to be demo-
cratic.

The presence of water bodies can impact economic activities, trade, and transportation, thereby
influencing the political development of a region. We predict that countries with abundant water
resources are more likely to establish and sustain democratic systems.

6
4.2.4 Deserts and Democratization
Hypothesis 13 (H13) Countries with large desert areas are less likely to be democratic.

Deserts pose challenges for agriculture, settlement, and economic development. We hypothesize
that nations with significant desert regions may face obstacles that hinder the establishment and
maintenance of democratic institutions.
To test these hypotheses, we will utilize regression analysis, similar to the approach taken for
geographical distance. Each type of endogenous feature will be considered as a covariate, and the
democratization score or the rate of democratization will serve as the response variable. We will also
explore spatial autocorrelation to account for potential influences from neighboring countries.

4.3 Data Collection and Analysis

Data on terrain, climate, bodies of water, and other relevant geographical features will be obtained
from reliable sources, such as global databases and environmental agencies. The analysis will be
conducted using statistical tools in Python programming language. We aim to provide a comprehen-
sive understanding of how both exogenous (geographical distance) and endogenous features influence
the democratization process across different countries. The statistical tests will be performed at a
significance level of 0.05.

References
[Barnett and Low, 2004] Barnett, C. and Low, M. (2004). Introduction: Geography and democracy.
In Barnett, C. and Low, M., editors, Spaces of Democracy: geographical perspectives on citizenship,
participation and representation, pages 1–22. Sage Publications, London, UK. http://digital.
casalini.it/9781412931397.
[Freedom House, 2023] Freedom House (2023). Freedom in the world 2023. Report.
[Lankina and Getachew, 2007] Lankina, T. and Getachew, L. (2007). A geographic incremental the-
ory of democratization: Territory, aid, and democracy in postcommunist regions. World Politics,
58(4):536–582.
[Moran, 1950] Moran, P. A. P. (1950). A test for the serial independence of residuals. Biometrika,
37:178–181.
[Murphy and (U.S.), 1993] Murphy, A. B. and (U.S.), N. S. F. (1993). Geographic approaches to
democratization: A report to the national science foundation. National Science Foundation (U.S.).
This is a report to the National Science Foundation on geographic approaches to democratization.