Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Churchill's The River War and the Literature of Empire

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The essay argues that this history, as with other of Churchill's interwar writings, is crafted with a special concern to rehabilitate his status as a political thinker and actor. It focuses especially on the Dardanelles disaster, for which he was so unfairly blamed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Winston Churchill once asserted that “democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” To date, his notion of democracy as a lesser evil has been tested exclusively in the post-Communist societies of Eastern and Central Europe. As a result, little is known about how useful, or valid, it is for analyzing popular reactions to new democratic rule in other regions. To fill this gap in the literature, we tested the lesser evil notion of democracy with the 2001-2003 East Asia Barometer surveys conducted in Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand. Our analysis reveals that Korea and Taiwan are the only two East Asian new democracies where a substantial minority of the mass citizenry does perceive the current democratic regime as a lesser evil and these lesser-evil perceivers fully support democracy to a significantly greater extent than those who perceive it as a greater evil. On the basis of this finding, we argue that the Churchillian notion of democracy as a lesser evil is of limited utility as an alternative paradigm for the study of democratization, especially from the perspective of ordinary citizens in the midst of such political experience.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: An analysis of allegorical aspects of Churchill's biographical sketch of Georges Clemenceau and Clemenceau's biography of Demosthenes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Please contact me at rgb27@cam.ac.uk for a copy of this paper if necessary.

This paper looks at prominent politicians' perceptions of a hegemonic power and its role in the international system from inside and outside that power. The aim of the paper is to discuss and compare elite perceptions with International Relations theory concerning hegemony. An important reason to study elite perceptions is debate with theory. Where do schemes of individual actors and academic theories of explanation agree and diverge? This paper compares Aristide Briand (1862-1932), Austen Chamberlain (1863-1937) and Winston Churchill (1874-1965) on their views of Great Britain in the international system 1890s-1920s. At the time Britain ruled the biggest empire ever, enjoyed complete naval supremacy giving it mastery of world trade and finance, and overseas interventions. Yet, at the same time, Britain was strangely detached from the conflicts of the lesser great powers next door on the European Continent and without a European-size army. Research into the development of the three's perceptions of the international system shows distinctive perceptions of questions as the role and legitimacy of Great Britain and other great powers. Chamberlain with an excellent British-French-German education in history and political science clearly saw Britain's entanglement in Continental conflicts and urged concerted great power action for managing the international system. Churchill was introduced to international affairs as officer and correspondent on the Frontier in India, Sudan and South Africa before 1900. Here he developed a strong sense of the British Empire as centre and guardian of the international system according no legitimacy to neither other great powers nor smaller state or non-state actors. Churchill was preoccupied with maintaining the hegemonic image of the Empire, against colonised and the rising US challenge. French perceptions show the importance of invasion danger and security dilemma on the European Continent. Perceptions remind theory of the subjectivity of the international system and hegemony.