The Perils and Promises of Democratization through United Nations Transitional Authority – Lessons from Cambodia and East Timor AUREL CROISSANT This article compares democratization under the aegis of the United Nations in Cambodia and East Timor. The analysis points to the inherent contradictions and problems of democratization in post-conflict situations and discusses the difficult issue of timing. It draws four generalized conclusions about democratization through international interim governments in post-conflict societies. First, UN-led interim governments can provide a solution to the problems of civil strife, insecurity, and political instability in disrupted states. Second, democratization through international interim governments in civil-war countries can be successful if the transi- tional authority is able to maintain a stable ‘hurting balance of power’ and to guarantee the parties’ compliance with democratic procedures. Third, international interim regimes like UNTAC are designed on the premise that reconciliation among the domestic parties is possible. If the premise turns out to be inaccurate, the very foundation of the peace process is challenged and it will be almost impossible successfully to adjust the interim government’s institutional structure. Fourth, the cases of Cambodia and East Timor demonstrate that democratization must be embedded in a comprehensive agenda of political, social, and economic methods of peace-building. If interim governments end before the roots of democracy are deep enough and before democratic institutions are strong enough to stand alone, then the entire endeavour may fail. Key words: democratization; interim administration; Cambodia; East Timor Introduction The US-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have brought the subject of exter- nally imposed democratic regimes back on the agenda of democratization studies. The origins of the recent debate about the perils and virtues of ‘democratizing protec- torates’ reach back into the 1990s, when scholars and practitioners began to argue that temporary protectorates had become the necessary condition for democracy in countries torn apart by civil war. 1 Simultaneously, with the end of the Cold War, the United Nations began to invest significant military, political, humanitarian, and economic resources into operations conducted in the aftermath of intrastate wars and civil unrest. 2 This study discusses the subject of externally directed and monitored democrati- zation under the aegis of the United Nations with reference to Cambodia and East Aurel Croissant is Professor of Political Science at the Institute of Political Science, Ruprecht Karls University of Heidelberg. Democratization, Vol.15, No.3, June 2008, pp.649–668 ISSN 1351-0347 print/1743-890X online DOI: 10.1080/13510340801972403 # 2008 Taylor & Francis