Does U.S. Regime Change Leads to Instability

U.S.-led regime change has been a defining feature of American foreign policy throughout much of the 20th and 21st centuries, often pursued with the objective of democratization, economic stability, and security enhancement. However, the success of these interventions varies significantly, as seen in the contrasting cases of post-war Japan and post-invasion Iraq. This paper analyzes four key factors influencing regime change outcomes: pre-existing democratic or bureaucratic institutions, the role of education, economic support, and ethnic homogeneity. Japan, benefiting from strong bureaucratic institutions, a highly literate population, substantial U.S. economic aid, and ethnic unity, transitioned into a stable democracy following World War II. Conversely, Iraq, lacking strong bureaucratic foundations, suffering from a weak education system, minimal post-war economic support, and deep ethnic divisions, fell into prolonged instability after the 2003 U.S. invasion. This comparative analysis underscores the necessity of these four factors in achieving long-term stability and informs future U.S. foreign policy on regime change strategies.

‍ ‍

Introduction

‍ ‍

Regime change has been a long-standing tool in U.S. foreign policy which has sought to remove authoritarian leaders and install democratic governance. While there are notable examples of successful transitions, such as post-war Germany and Japan and Panama’s case, other interventions have resulted in prolonged instability, such as in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Understanding the factors that contribute to these divergent outcomes is essential for guiding future U.S. foreign policy. The stakes of this issue are high: failed interventions can lead to lasting conflict, economic collapse, and humanitarian crises, while successful ones can contribute to long-term peace, stability, and economic growth. As U.S. global influence is increasingly questioned, examining the outcomes of regime change becomes not only a matter of historical interest but a pressing policy concern. The consequences of getting it wrong are no longer theoretical—they unfold in real time, impacting global security and America's strategic credibility. Thus, analyzing these cases provides insight into the conditions that are conducive for successful regime change as well as what can go wrong with forced democracy without the prerequisite conditions.

‍ ‍

Literature Review

‍ ‍

There are four main schools of thought on the causes of post-intervention regime stability. The first is that pre-existing democratic institutions serve as a base that facilitates stable governance. Second, education is critically important, as high literacy rates allow for political participation and governance reform. Economic support, especially in the form of aid, helps stabilize a country’s finances and rebuild its infrastructure. Finally, ethnic homogeneity has a positive impact on national unity to reduce internal conflict as it determines the degree to which a country’s population shares a common identity. These factors determine whether a country can successfully transition to democracy or whether it will fall into chaos. While existing scholarship has explored individual factors influencing regime change—such as institutional strength, education, or ethnic composition—few studies have systematically examined how these factors interact across multiple case studies with contrasting outcomes. This paper addresses that gap by conducting a comparative analysis of U.S.-led regime changes in Japan and Iraq, demonstrating how the presence or absence of key conditions affects post-intervention stability. The paper begins by outlining the theoretical framework of four key factors—bureaucratic institutions, education, economic aid, and ethnic homogeneity. It then presents Japan as a case of successful transition, followed by Iraq as a case of failed democratization. A brief discussion of Panama provides a counterexample, showing that exceptions exist. The conclusion reflects on the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy and offers directions for future research.

‍ ‍

Theoretical Framework: The Four Schools of Thought

‍ ‍

The success of U.S.-led regime change is often analyzed through various schools of thought, each focusing on different variables that shape the outcomes of such interventions. This framework is crucial for understanding why some interventions succeed in transitioning countries to stable democracies while others fail. Key theories highlight four main factors that determine the success or failure of post-regime change stability: pre-existing democratic or bureaucratic institutions, the role of education, economic support, and ethnic homogeneity. The success of externally imposed regime change is dependent on a nation’s pre-existing political framework. When democratic or stable bureaucratic institutions already exist, the transition to a new government is smoother because bureaucratic structures, legal frameworks and political traditions continue (Downes & Monten, 2013).

‍ ‍

Education equips citizens with the civic knowledge necessary for engaging with democratic processes and understanding their roles within a new political system. According to Arif et al. (2018), high literacy rates and a well-developed educational framework can foster political awareness and participation, thus facilitating smoother transitions to democratic governance. Through education, the nation becomes politically engaged in civic activities and develops skilled managers to lead the country (Denison, 2020). Consequently, Vrtiska (2019) asserts that countries with low literacy rates, limited access to quality education, or weakened educational infrastructures often result from prolonged conflict, authoritarian regimes, or economic underdevelopment.

‍ ‍

Another key factor for the success of post-regime change transitions is economic investment and financial support from the U.S. Such aid enables the country to rebuild its economy and integrate into the global market through the financial, technological, and industrial support. (Dobbins et al., 2003). It stabilizes the society as the rapid economic recovery permits a successful democratic transition. However, in cases where the U.S. allocated reconstruction funds are not adequately distributed due to a corrupt or disorganized governance system, it creates a roadblock to achieving a meaningful economic recovery. The failure to implement a comprehensive economic recovery plan contributes to unemployment, poverty, and discontent, fueling insurgencies and prolonging instability (Neeson, 2008).

‍ ‍

Post-regime change stability is also influenced by ethnic composition. A relatively smooth political transition and social cohesion in the post-war period is afforded by the absence of deep-rooted sectarian divisions. U.S.-led reforms should be largely accepted by the population without much resistance, which proves to be a stabilizing factor in the long term (Haddad, 2012). Prolonged instability can therefore be due to the lack of ability to foster national unity and develop inclusive governance, thus hampering post-regime change reconstruction efforts.

‍ ‍

Case Selection

‍ ‍

While scholars have explored the importance of the aforementioned factors individually, fewer studies have systematically compared the combined effects of these factors in different post-regime change contexts. This paper addresses that gap by comparing the U.S.-led regime changes in Japan and Iraq to assess how the interaction and cumulative presence or absence of these factors shape democratic outcomes. The study further includes Panama as a counterexample that achieved relative stability despite lacking some of these conditions, raising important questions about whether exceptions can succeed through alternative pathways such as geopolitical interests or rapid military stabilization. By analyzing these contrasting cases, the paper aims to clarify whether all four factors are jointly necessary for successful transitions or whether stability can emerge through context-specific combinations.

‍ ‍

Japan: A Successful U.S.-Led Regime Change

‍ ‍

Historical Background: Japan Before and After World War II

‍ ‍

Japan’s path to regime change under U.S. occupation must be understood in the broader historical context of its political development and wartime experience. Before World War II, Japan had a pretty well-organized administrative system, the functional parliamentary structure of the Meiji Constitution, and a centralized governance framework that helped them to reform after the war (Dobbins et al., 2008; Denison, 2020). While the emperor retained supreme power, Japan also developed a robust bureaucracy and legal-administrative institutions modeled after Western states. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Japan underwent rapid industrialization and military expansion, emerging as a major imperial power in East Asia (Denison, 2020). However, its aggressive militarism and expansionist policies led to a catastrophic clash with Allied powers during World War II. Following its defeat in 1945, Japan’s cities lay in ruins, millions were displaced, and its economy was devastated. The surrender marked not only a military defeat but also a crisis of legitimacy for the imperial government.

‍ ‍

In the aftermath of the war, the United States led the Allied Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. This occupation marked a rare case of total regime overhaul implemented by an external power. The occupation had two central goals: demilitarization and democratization (Dobbins et al., 2008). Key reforms included the drafting of a new constitution in 1947, land redistribution, labor protections, and the establishment of civil liberties and women’s suffrage. Rather than dismantling the entire governmental structure, U.S. forces retained much of Japan’s existing bureaucracy, which helped maintain institutional continuity (Dobbins et al., 2003). This historical context is critical for understanding how Japan’s internal conditions shaped the success of U.S.-led regime change.

‍ ‍

The post-World War II transformation of Japan was one of the most successful cases of U.S.-led regime change. However, the most important reason Japan succeeded was that prewar institutions had been well set up, particularly a very strong bureaucracy that continued after the war. Japan’s centralized bureaucratic structure, rooted in the functional parliamentary system, allowed the country to absorb democratic reforms without collapsing the state apparatus (Vrtiska, 2019). However, Japan’s success cannot be attributed solely to its bureaucracy. Education, another crucial factor, played a significant role in facilitating the country’s post-war transformation (Vrtiska, 2019). Before the war, Japan had a highly developed educational system, characterized by high literacy rates and an emphasis on discipline, national unity, and administrative efficiency. Ethnic homogeneity also contributed to Japan’s stability during the transition. With a largely homogeneous population, Japan faced fewer challenges related to ethnic or sectarian tensions, which often plague other post-intervention countries (Denison, 2020). Economic support from the U.S. and international institutions was another critical factor. The U.S. provided substantial financial aid, including loans and trade assistance, to help Japan rebuild its economy.

‍ ‍

Japan’s Bureaucracy and Democratic Transition

‍ ‍

After Japan surrendered in 1945, the United States embarked on a massive nation-building effort under the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), headed by General Douglas MacArthur. Its purpose was to demilitarize and democratize Japan to make sure it would never again pose a threat to the security of the world (Dobbins et al., 2008). Among the most important reforms was the replacement of the Meiji Constitution promulgated in 1889 with the new postwar constitution of 1947, which created a parliamentary democracy. The new constitution curtailed the emperor’s powers, allowed civil liberties, and instituted a form of democracy focusing on human rights (Dobbins et al., 2008). Moreover, the U.S. enacted land reforms to transfer land from large landlords to tenant farmers and, thereby, increase the level of economic equality and lower the levels of social unrest. It also enlarged the category of labor rights, in which labor unions were strengthened and workers were protected better (Dobbins et al., 2008). The early reforms were an initial step leading to a more stable and democratic Japan.

‍ ‍

At that time, Japan’s bureaucratic and administrative structure was one of the strongest in the world; it was a good decision on the U.S.’s part, given that rather than replacing them completely, they chose to work with them (Neeson, 2008). The economic recovery measures, as well as liberalization in political participation, also further stabilized Japan’s transition (Dobbins et al., 2008). Free and fair elections were created, new sets of political parties arose, and U.S. guidance had some effect in democratizing the political culture. It was also a period of dramatic improvement on women’s rights; for the first time, women were given the right to vote and to take an equal political participation (Dobbins et al., 2008).

‍ ‍

Joseph Dodge’s Plan of 1949, the US financial advisor, accelerated the stabilization of Japan’s economy. The main points of the plan were fiscal austerity, controlling inflation, and restoring confidence in the yen (Vrtiska, 2019). Apart from this, the US gave a huge volume of financial aid and direct investment, such as access to the global market and technology transfer. Dobbins et al. (2008) assert that these economic measures were necessary in order to ensure that Japan’s postwar reconstruction was fast and efficient. Japan’s transition process also had a key factor in the roles of reforms, which was through implementation through local involvement as opposed to the use of force. The democratic reforms stood against Japan’s preexisting institutions rather than against them. Ultimately, the smooth transition during Japan’s regime change was a product of the underlying sociopolitical and cultural institutional adaptation.

‍ ‍

Economic Recovery and Foreign Aid

‍ ‍

The extent of Japan’s economic recovery program during the post-war occupation was a crucial factor in its successful transition after the U.S.-led regime change. Japan received direct American economic assistance from the U.S in the form of $2.2 billion in grants and loans to Japan between 1945 and 1952 (Neeson, 2008). Japan was able to rebuild its industries, invest in new technologies, and stabilize its currency with this financial support. Ultimately, Japan recovered quickly and became one of the world’s leading economies through targeted economic assistance and industrial investment. In addition, U.S. policies helped to nurture such key industries as steel, automotive production, and electronics, and these helped form the basis of Japan’s postwar economic boom. Most of these funds were provided through Government and Relief in Occupied Areas (GARIOA) grants. Japan repaid $490 million of the total postwar assistance. Of the $2.2 billion in total aid, an estimated $655 million, or almost a third, went to categories that would mostly contribute directly to economic recovery (industrial materials, including machinery and raw goods; petroleum and products; and transportation, vehicles, and equipment). Most of the rest went for agricultural equipment, foodstuffs, and food supplies, with smaller amounts spent on medical and sanitary supplies, education, and clothing.

‍ ‍

Education

‍ ‍

Japan’s democratic transition and long-term stability after U.S.-led regime change were also founded in education. Japan’s pre-war education system was intensely developed, with high literacy and emphasis on discipline, national unity, and administrative efficiency. As a result, the population had the intellectual and technical capacity to facilitate democratization efforts (Vrtiska, 2019). The country decentralized its educational system to foster greater local decision-making and extend co-educational schooling to promote gender equality. According to Vrtiska (2019), the higher education institutions were restructured in line with academic freedom and critical inquiry. With these pre-existing educational advancements, they helped create a new generation of politically conscious people who were dedicated to nationalistic values. As Vrtiska (2019) notes, "Japan’s education system instilled the intellectual and technical capacity necessary to facilitate post-war democratization efforts" (p. 45). This educational foundation provided a skilled population capable of supporting democratic governance, which is directly relevant to post-war stability because democratic systems require informed citizen participation, bureaucratic competence, and civic trust to function effectively. In Japan’s case, the population’s preparedness to engage with new democratic institutions helped ensure a smoother political transition and reduced the risk of unrest or governance breakdown.

‍ ‍

Pre-War Ethnic Homogeneity

‍ ‍

Often, ethnic homogeneity has been associated with shared identity, which enables national cohesion and easy implementation of reforms. The stability of Japan after World War II was also helped by a strong national identity and social cohesion. It was ethnically homogeneous and had a cultural and historical identity (Denison, 2020). Moreover, Japan had a largely homogenous population, which made the post intervention transition smooth because there was no ethnic or sectarian tension problem, which is common in other post intervention countries, where different ethnic groups fight for political power or resources (Haddad, 2012). Since there was no ethnic conflict, Japan’s leaders and the U.S. occupiers were free to concentrate on reforms related to the creation of democratic institutions, economic recovery, and social welfare, rather than on ethnic tensions or demands of contending groups. It also promoted national unity in Japan by encouraging its citizens to accept and support the new governance structures under U.S. occupation and being more trusting of the new democratic government. As such, the unity of Japan furnished it with a firm ground for the postwar transformation as it changed to democracy with lesser obstacles than many other nations with diverse ethnicities.

‍ ‍

In conclusion, Japan’s pivot to becoming a stable democracy after U.S. led regime change was due to many factors that made for positive post war recovery and governance. This state of institutional continuity and the ability to implement reforms without collapsing state functions was mainly due to the existence of a strong pre-war bureaucratic structure. Japan’s well developed education system had produced a literate and civically capable population capable of participating in democratic processes and supporting political stability. Economic support from the United States, particularly through the Marshall Plan and other assistance programs, helped to get Japan’s economy back on track and regain public trust in the new political system. Secondly, Japan’s ethnic homogeneity played a role in minimizing internal divisions and enhancing a strong sense of national identity, thus curtailing the divided disunity to reform with minor-to-zero sectarian resistance. In combination, these conditions produced conditions suitable for democratization and for long term stability; thus, regime change can succeed when local institutions are robust and there exists external support that is strategically consistent with the country's sociopolitical realities.

‍ ‍

Iraq: A Failed U.S.-Led Regime Change

‍ ‍

Historical Background

‍ ‍

To understand the failure of U.S.-led regime change in Iraq, it is essential to examine the country's complex political and social history prior to the 2003 invasion. Iraq was established as a modern state in 1921 under British colonial influence, with artificial borders that combined diverse ethnic and religious groups—primarily Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds—into a single political entity (Kingma, 2012). Following independence in 1932, Iraq experienced decades of political instability marked by coups, military rule, and authoritarian regimes. In 1968, the Ba'ath Party seized control, and Saddam Hussein rose to power in 1979 (Bellin, 2004). His rule was defined by centralized authority, brutal repression, and prolonged conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, which triggered the Gulf War and subsequent international sanctions. These years left Iraq with a heavily militarized, corrupt regime and a weakened economy and civil society.

‍ ‍

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 aimed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, dismantle alleged weapons of mass destruction programs, and establish a democratic government (Bellin, 2004). Following a rapid military victory, the U.S. established the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which pursued sweeping reforms including de-Ba’athification and disbanding the Iraqi military and civil service. These decisions created a power vacuum and alienated large segments of the population, especially Sunni Arabs. The post-invasion period quickly devolved into insurgency, sectarian violence, and widespread instability (Byman, 2003). Understanding Iraq’s pre-existing authoritarian structure, ethnic divisions, and lack of democratic experience is vital for analyzing why U.S. regime change efforts failed to produce lasting stability.

‍ ‍

The United States has widely used regime change as a foreign policy tool to remove a dictatorship and replace it with democratic governance. Although the strategy has worked long term as seen in the cases of Japan for instance, Iraq’s intervention failed to achieve its ultimate objective of long-term political stability and sustainable democracy. The case of U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 was a failed regime change, which was followed by prolonged instability, sectarian conflict, and economic collapse. The explanations of regime change include the four schools of thought that were in; strong bureaucracy, education, economic support as financial aid and ethnic homogeneity. Democratic institutions are a starting point for the establishment of stable governance, while education plays a key role in political participation and support of governance reform. As such, education is especially important in the context of Iraq, equipping citizens with civic knowledge to engage with democratic processes and their role in a new political system. According to Arif et al. (2018), increased literacy and a stable system of education can lead to enhanced political participation and awareness, which ease countries’ transition into democratic policies of governance.

‍ ‍

However, in Iraq, low literacy levels left much of the population politically and civically unprepared for the demands of democratic participation, exacerbating ethnic divisions and undermining efforts to build a unified state (Kingma, 2012). Decades of political repression, wars, and sanctions had a devastating impact on the country’s schools, which were poorly funded and lacked the capacity to educate a generation that could engage in democratic governance (Kingma, 2012). The success of the regime changes also depended on economic and financial aid to guarantee stability, but without the supporting framework of education to promote democratic values, these efforts faltered (Islam, 2005). Therefore, Iraq, lacking democratic foundations, suffering from a weak education system, minimal post-war economic support, and deep ethnic divisions, fell into prolonged instability after the U.S. intervention.

‍ ‍

Pre-existing Bureaucracy

‍ ‍

Iraq has a weak pre-existing bureaucratic system to ensure institutional continuity after Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled. Saddam’s authoritarian rule relied heavily on patronage networks, which ensured loyalty through rewards and punishments, often at the expense of merit-based public service (Bellin, 2004). This system, built on personal loyalty rather than professional competence, meant that Iraq's public sector was not only inefficient but also disconnected from the needs of the broader population. For instance, ministries were often filled with individuals who were loyal to the regime, rather than those who had the skills and experience to manage the country’s complex governance needs (Bellin, 2004). The lack of a merit-based public service led to a bureaucracy that was unable to perform its basic functions, such as providing services or developing policies that addressed the needs of the Iraqi people (Denison, 2020).

‍ ‍

Prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq was under the rule of a Ba'athist authoritarian regime which maintained tight control over political, trade, and social affairs. The Ba'athist regime systematically undermined professional and administrative autonomy, with key bureaucrats being drawn from Hussein’s inner circle and ethnic group, further entrenching sectarian divisions (Downes & Monten, 2013). This led to a lack of institutional integrity and a civil service that was primarily a tool of repression, rather than a functional, independent institution. Hussein maintained power through repression, patronage networks, and suppression of political dissent. Unlike Japan, Iraq’s governance was inextricably tied to its regime, and democratic transition after removal was difficult since Iraq had bureaucratic institutions that could function independently of military rule (Bellin, 2004).

‍ ‍

The post-invasion transition was further complicated by Iraq’s history of political instability. Over the course of the 20th century, the country had had many coups and regime changes, and had very little experience with legitimate governance. Elections were, in most cases, fraudulent or non-existent and political participation was confined to those close to Hussein. It also had deep-rooted sectarian and ethnic divisions, and Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds fought to be in charge (Downes & Monten, 2013). After Hussein was removed, these mostly suppressed divisions erupted in violence. Therefore, such prolonged conflicts crippled Iraq’s state infrastructure, leaving public institutions underfunded, inefficient, and incapable of strengthening the existing bureaucracy supporting democratic reforms.

‍ ‍

Role of Education in Governance

‍ ‍

The Overlooked Foundation of Democracy

‍ ‍

Stabilizing the post regime change requires civic education based on national identity, participatory governance, and political consciousness (Arif et al., 2018). Education can provide stability in politically unstable environments such as Iraq’s, by enabling citizens to be educated and involved in the political system, and even working together to resolve conflict (Arif et al., 2018). This is why there was no effective civic educational framework in Iraq and why building a stable, unified government was that much more difficult. The lack of civic education was also a factor because it did not develop a population that was capable of creating an effective relationship with the new governance structures, following Saddam Hussein’s departure. Arif et al. (2018) asserts that the citizenship education is capable of enabling citizens to understand and exercise their rights and responsibilities as well as participation into political participation in an informed and competent manner and for the purposes of contributing to a stable state by ensuring there is social cohesion. Most notably, there was no civic education in curricula program that teaches democratic norms, the rights of a citizen, and inclusive identity of a citizen to the national state, thereby depriving of Iraqi people of tools which could help them to understand and meaningfully participate in the governance structures that were put in place. The resulting gap further aggravated the disengagement and mistrust between the population and state. This fragmentation of post invasion governance, coupled with a lack of civic literacy, led to growing sectarianism and little trust in government institutions.

‍ ‍

Civic Illiteracy and the Rise of Sectarian Allegiances

‍ ‍

The absence of civic education made the subnational identities in Iraq entrenched. Some of the citizens of Iraq reverted to sectarian, tribal, and ethnic affinities as a way of navigating the emergent political order rather than cultivating an Iraqi identity on the basis of commonly shared democratic values. Following the invasion, civic education was not included in the rebuilding strategy, so a majority of Iraqis did not have a framework upon which to understand or engage with the democratic institutions that were built. As noted by Arif et al. (2018), the absence of civic literacy “reinforced ethno-sectarian division, the lack of public trust in electoral and legal processes” (p.156). In an already fragile context of national unity, this educational vacuum offered an opportunity for identity politics to strengthen, reducing the legitimacy and efficacy of democratic governance.

‍ ‍

Neglect of Educational Reform in Policy and Practice

‍ ‍

The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) undertook much work in terms of high-level constitutional arrangements and security sector reform but typically neglected the role of public education in the provision of the foundations of sustaining democratic norms. In Sunni majority and Kurdish rural areas, so many of which harbored skepticism of central authority, there was minimal or no update to the curricula and minimal years of civic training. Wherever insurgency and political alienation took root, Arif et al. (2018) demonstrate that “there was no coherent national curriculum strategy” to foster democratic values, and this was most lacking in the very regions (p. 158). Ultimately, the implications of ignorance of civic education were severe. Without an educated citizenry that could understand the democratic procedures, evaluate the political platforms or exercise civic responsibility, the democratic project in Iraq remained elite-driven and externally imposed.

‍ ‍

Economic Support

‍ ‍

Economic recovery is a crucial component of post-regime change stability (Islam, 2005). The level of post-intervention aid from the US for economic recovery affects the stability of the U.S.-led post-regime change. In the case of Iraq, while the U.S. allocated substantial financial resources to aid the country's recovery after the 2003 invasion, the distribution and application of this aid failed to stabilize the country in the long term. The U.S first pledged a massive aid package worth $18.4 billion that was to go towards rebuilding and development projects. However, the help put in was delayed, misallocated, or inefficient (Islam, 2005). This assistance was spread across several sectors such as infrastructure, security, and social services but was redirected to payoffs for short term solutions instead of investing in long-term economic and institutional reforms. For instance, huge amounts of money were spent to restore the infrastructures and security apparatus but very little to enhance Iraq’s administrative abilities or resolve Iraq’s governance issues.

‍ ‍

Most of the aid money was filtered through contracts in the hands of private corporations, and numerous accounts from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) pointed to techniques of wastefulness and manipulation in the use of these aid overseen by military forces (Yasiry, 2020). Often, projects were subject to delays and poor management, while local governance structures did not have the capacity to assimilate and effectively use the assistance. As Islam (2005) notes, “The failure to tie economic aid with necessary governance reforms meant that economic assistance could not be used to build the foundations for a stable, functioning state” (p. 115). The insufficient coordination between economic aid and governance reforms in Iraq contributed to the country’s continued instability. Economic assistance, while vital, was not enough on its own. Without integrating this aid with institutional reforms—particularly the rebuilding of Iraq’s bureaucratic and political institutions—there was no way to ensure that the country could sustain itself in the long term.

‍ ‍

Lack of Ethnic Homogeneity

‍ ‍

One of the greatest barriers to successful democratization was Iraq’s deeply fragmented ethno-sectarian identity. Unlike postwar Japan, Iraq was a mosaic of competing identities (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) and had no national vision. In delineating this issue, Kingma (2012) notes, “The Iraqi artificial state with its Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia communities lacks the unity needed for a democratic government” (p. 2). Rather than encouraging the emergence of an inclusive civic identity, the political form of the post-invasion democratic framework continued the divisions by institutionalizing sectarian loyalties through the proportional system of representation. For this reason, the lines of political allegiance were mostly a function of ethnicity, undermining the state legitimacy and civic cohesion. Many Iraqis still preferred to affiliate along communal lines rather than by their loyalty to the federal system, even after national elections (Kingma, 2012).

‍ ‍

This division was made even more difficult by contentious issues like Kurdish autonomy and the unresolved status of Kirkuk. As Park (2004) notes, “The fate of Kirkuk... remains a flashpoint of ethnic competition and federal instability,” reflecting the ongoing struggle for control among Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen. Rustow’s theory on democratization claims that democracy needs a minimum amount of national identity consensus to come into being. This foundational agreement was absent in Iraq, and there were no real grounds to expect the establishment of a functioning, unified democratic state overcome by mutual distrust and sectarian rivalry.

‍ ‍

By removing Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab leader in a Shia majority country, a power contest broke out between Iraq’s main ethnic and sectarian groups (Haddad, 2012). After the invasion, they played a central role in the political affairs of Iraq for the first time in modern history, and this brought resentment from the Sunnis who constitute the country's largest Arab community. Together, the exclusion of Sunnis from government as well as de Ba’athification policies contributed to the rise of Sunni insurgent groups including Al Qaeda in Iraq (later becoming ISIS). In Iraq, where there is a lack of inclusive governance, as the country became a battleground for sectarian violence with frequent bombings, assassinations, and armed conflicts. It created instability that allowed extremist groups to seize territory large enough to plunge it into further conflicts and to attract foreign interventions.

‍ ‍

Overall, the examination of the U.S.-led regime changes in Iraq using the Four Schools of Thought highlights the importance of essential preconditions for post-intervention stability. Iraq did not possess pre-existing institutions, national unity, or the educational infrastructure that could give rise to democratic values. However, in its neglect of citizenship education, Iraqis were exposed to sectarian manipulation, and civic trust and democratic engagement were undermined. The mismanagement of aid and over-reliance on oil revenues did not create sustainable growth or local governance capacity economically. Further ethnic fragmentation of Iraq contributed to further instabilities as unresolved disputes such as the status of Kirkuk created antagonism instead of cooperation (Park, 2004). Whereas Japan had a unified political structure and a unified identity as a nation, Iraq had a fractured society that posed a problem to the emergence of a unified state. The new government was simply not legitimate in terms of moving a country whose population is as diverse as Iraq, and, more crucially, it did not have the ability or capacity to unite Iraq's population. Therefore, Iraq’s experience is a cautionary tale that democratization must be as much a societal transformation as a political one, requiring time, cultural sensitivity, and grassroots empowerment to succeed.

‍ ‍

US Regime Change in Panama 1989

‍ ‍

Conversely, Panama is a notable country that did not have all the prerequisite factors for functional regime change (pre-existing democratic or bureaucratic institutions, the role of education, economic support, and ethnic homogeneity) but still succeeded anyway. In December 1989, US forces launched Operation Just Cause to remove Panamanian General Manuel Noriega from power and reinstate a democratic leadership in Panama (Furlong, 1993). The operation took place after a period when the United States maintained growing disputes with Noriega's government which grew more corrupt and abusive toward citizens while expanding drug trade operations. According to Furlong (1993), to achieve a successful post-intervention stability, Panama needed to establish democratic institutions, eliminate military control, and formulate a national plan to recover the economy. However, the country was devastated and thus the need for external support in attaining true economic and political stability (Furlong, 1993). Therefore, the intervention sought to maintain regional stability, protect the security of the Panama Canal, and introduce democratic institutions.

‍ ‍

National Unity

‍ ‍

Panama's national unity resulted from the successful resolution of the Panama Canal negotiations that solidified the country's post-intervention stability. Historically, the Panama Canal maintains its dual role of importance for Panama and the United States. The Atlantic-Pacific maritime route functions as a strategic path that supports worldwide economic exchange and military commands. The U.S. gained control of the Panama Canal when it was built during the early 20th century and Panama kept minimal power over the Canal Zone area. Furlong (1993) explains that the arrangement between Panama and the U.S. caused substantial strain because Panama wanted the Canal back under its control and to show its national independence. The U.S. sent troops in 1989 as they needed to retain authority over the canal and to stabilize Panama's political situation during Noriega's unstable rule (Furlong, 1993). The subsequent intervention created the necessary conditions that led Panama to regain control of the canal before becoming a defining moment for its national history. The transition of the Canal back to Panama is not just a geopolitical shift but represents a fundamental step toward full sovereignty, marking a new chapter in Panama's national identity (Furlong, 1993).

‍ ‍

Panama achieved full sovereign control through the Panama Canal Treaty, signed in 1977 and enacted in 1999 (Furlong, 1993). “The smooth transfer of control of the canal to Panama in 1999 was seen not just as a return of physical territory, but as the final step in Panama’s full independence” (p. 26). As Lasso (2007) further notes, "The canal was no longer just a geopolitical asset; it became the cornerstone of a national identity that was defined by the unity and collective will of Panamanians" (p. 15). The canal progressed from its contentious nature to become a powerful representation of national pride and strength that united Panama. Therefore, the successful resolution and negotiations about the canal became a turning point for fostering national unity and solidifying Panama’s post-intervention stability.

‍ ‍

Economic Recovery and Support for Development

‍ ‍

The US intervention severely affected Panama’s economy which was already on a deteriorating path following the authoritarian rule. The invasion caused over $1 billion in direct losses, including destruction to infrastructure and businesses, with shops and inventories severely damaged during the military action and subsequent looting (Furlong, 1993). However, prior to the U.S. intervention, Panama’s economic development was characterized by stagnation because of corruption and mismanagement, along with political instability, which shaped an unstable environment (Ropp, 1992). The country faced worsened economic problems due to U.S. economic sanctions that limited financial operations and trade activities. As Furlong (1993) highlights, “Panama’s GNP declined by over 22% during the period of Noriega’s rule, and unemployment reached over 25% as a result of economic mismanagement and the international isolation” (p. 28).

‍ ‍

Because the U.S. was a major contributor to Panama's economic downfall—via sanctions and military action—there was widespread expectation that the U.S. would assist in Panama’s recovery. In response, the Panamanian government requested $1.5 billion in aid, while businesses and citizens affected by the invasion anticipated receiving an additional $1 billion in support to help rebuild (Furlong, 1993). However, despite initial promises from President Bush of a $1 billion aid package, only a fraction of that amount was actually allocated, with less than half of the promised sum disbursed. After the intervention, U.S. and international financial institutions opted in support to help Panama come back economically. The aid that did arrive faced delays and came with numerous restrictions (Furlong, 1993). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided loans, trade, and investment programs, as well as food aid under P.L. 480, but no direct assistance was given to businesses that had lost inventory or suffered extensive damage during the invasion and looting (Furlong, 1993).

‍ ‍

By May 1991, the U.S. had authorized $461 million for Panama's recovery, with $351.8 million allocated to economic recovery assistance, including loans to international financial institutions. However, only $149.6 million of the $461 million authorized had been disbursed, with the majority allocated to emergency aid ($51.9 million) and economic recovery assistance ($351.8 million) (Furlong, 1993). Panama's recovery was further aided by the $130 million allocated to international financial institutions, which ensured Panama could rebuild and maintain its economic position in the global market” (Furlong, 1993). However, U.S. aid continued to fall short, with only $17 million in development assistance and $10 million in economic support funds requested for fiscal year 1992, and even less requested for 1993 (Sullivan, 1993). Despite lacking adequate economic aid from the U.S., the country did manage to make major milestones in its post-intervention economic recovery. This is evidenced by the growth in Gross National Product (GNP) at the end of 1991, signaling the country’s gradual economic recovery.

‍ ‍

Pre-intervention Bureaucracy

‍ ‍

The military's dominance over Panama's political system under General Noriega was a significant barrier to the development of democratic governance. This failure of institutional development is a critical factor in post-intervention stability. According to Scranton (1995), the regime used the military to control the government while forsaking democratic procedures. The military weakened the country’s courts and disrupted the rule of law as well as civilian institutions. Panama’s pre-intervention bureaucracy was quite weak and highly politicized where empty administrative positions were occupied through the relations of loyalty to the military regime, rather than professional merit (Ropp, 1992). This absence of bureaucratic autonomy and professionalism implied that there was hardly any institutional basis upon which could lay a solid foundation of governance after the intervention was over.

‍ ‍

However, reforms spearheaded by the U.S., such as judicial re-ordering and establishment of an independent electoral tribunal, made up for most of such anomalies (Scranton, 1992). Thus, post-intervention stability in Panama was not due to strong pre-intervention bureaucracy, but due to assistance from outside and swift institutional change after elimination of military control. With the help of the U.S., legal reforms were introduced to ensure judicial independence for Panama. They also overhauling the election process to increase transparency and fairness by establishing a more independent Electoral Tribunal (Scranton, 1995). This institution was responsible for the management of voter registration and the supervision of the campaigns and the adjudication of electoral disputes and therefore it eliminated any control elections from political elites and military members (Scranton, 1995). Electoral reforms offered a platform for establishing post-intervention stability by ensuring a free and fair election process whereby a newly democratic leader emerged in 1994 (Scranton, 1995). The winner of this election was Ernesto Pérez Balladares, from the Democratic Party of Revolutionary (PRD), who served from 1994 to 1999.

‍ ‍

The victory of Ernesto Pérez Balladares showed that democratic procedures were capable of working without military interference even when ex-regime allied parties were involved. A peaceful inauguration and democratism in his conduct helped in cementing peace in Panama’s political domain and marked the initiation of serious civilian governance. It is true that Balladares was associated with the former regime’s party, but that he became elected via a transparent and competitive process demonstrated maturity of the reformed institutions in Panama. His peaceful inauguration into office and his willingness to serve the country in accordance with the democratic practices indicated not only departure from authoritarian past but increasing desire toward civilian rule. This change reassured the Panamanians and the international observers to make sure that the democratic changes were in the process of booming. Therefore, the 1994 election was not just a procedural milestone but a meaningful indicator that Panama had reestablished a functioning democracy capable of sustaining stability in the post-intervention period.

‍ ‍

The US intervention through military support contributed to the stabilization of Panama’s political system after years of military rule. Operation Just Cause which commenced in December 1989, encompassed a swift military action that led to Noriega's removal and the demise of the Panama Defense Forces (PDF) (Scranton, 1995). As Furlong (1993) explains, "The rapid removal of Noriega and the dismantling of the military apparatus were key to preventing the resurgence of authoritarian rule and paving the way for the restoration of civilian governance" (p. 40). Ropp (1992) further asserts, “The United States and its international allies mounted an intense campaign to remove General Manuel Antonio Noriega and to get the military out of politics” (p. 213).

‍ ‍

The United States played an important role in supporting the installation of the elected civilian government of Guillermo Endara. Despite the Noriega regime’s efforts to annul the May 1989 election results, the U.S. recognized the legitimacy of Endara’s victory and provided the necessary support so that the civilian government could be installed (Ropp, 1992). Scranton (1992) highlights, “The U.S. intervention was instrumental in respecting the May 1989 election results and ensuring that the newly elected civilian government of Guillermo Endara could assume office, marking a decisive step toward Panama’s political stability” (p. 112). This step was necessary as it prevented any military oversight during the process of consolidation of democratic governance in Panama. It not only ousted a corrupt and authoritarian leader but also eliminated the military’s institutional control over Panama’s political system, such that the power would shift to civilian authorities thus fostering post-intervention stability in the country.

‍ ‍

Education and Post-Intervention Stability in Panama

‍ ‍

Education played an important, if often understated, role in Panama’s post-intervention recovery and democratic stabilization following the 1989 U.S. invasion. While Panama did not possess a robust or well-developed civic education infrastructure before the intervention, its educational system became a key pillar in rebuilding civil society, promoting democratic participation, and restoring national identity. Reforms in education after the U.S. intervention helped to address some of the structural weaknesses inherited from the Noriega era, where the military regime had politicized institutions, including schools, to maintain authoritarian control (Scranton, 1995). The reshaping of Panama’s education system thus contributed meaningfully to the long-term goal of ensuring peace, strengthening democratic institutions, and promoting civic engagement.

‍ ‍

Prior to the intervention, Panama’s education system suffered from underinvestment, poor infrastructure, and a lack of focus on civic instruction. During Noriega’s military dictatorship, education was often used as a tool of state propaganda. As Scranton (1995) notes, the military regime exerted control over the content and administration of public education, weakening critical thinking and suppressing civic awareness. Curricula avoided themes such as democratic governance, electoral processes, and civil liberties, instead focusing on obedience and national loyalty as defined by the military leadership (Scranton, 1995). This left a significant gap in civic knowledge, which contributed to low political engagement and poor trust in government institutions after the fall of the dictatorship.

‍ ‍

After the U.S. intervention, the newly restored civilian government recognized the urgent need to reform the education system as part of broader democratic institution-building. One of the earliest steps was the depoliticization of the Ministry of Education (Ministerio de Educación – MEDUCA), which had previously functioned under the influence of the military (Thomas-Brown & Fossum, 2022). Civilian educators and international advisors worked to redesign the national curriculum to include democratic citizenship, human rights, and participatory governance as core themes. According to Furlong (1993), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided technical and financial support to help Panama revise its educational framework. These reforms aimed not only to improve the quality of instruction but also to reorient education toward building informed citizens capable of contributing to a pluralistic democratic society.

‍ ‍

One significant reform was the introduction of Educación en Valores (Education in Values), a national curriculum initiative launched in the early 1990s to promote civic responsibility, ethical behavior, and social cohesion in classrooms across Panama (Thomas-Brown & Fossum, 2022). This program integrated themes such as respect for law, peaceful conflict resolution, and democratic participation into the general curriculum, especially in social science and civics courses (Scranton, 1995). These changes were especially targeted at secondary school students, recognizing that youth were critical actors in shaping a new democratic culture. By embedding these civic values early in students’ education, the government aimed to foster a generation that understood both their rights and responsibilities within a democratic system.

‍ ‍

Quantitative data from the early post-intervention period also indicates improvement in educational access and civic engagement. Between 1990 and 1995, school enrollment rates in Panama increased from 89% to 94% at the primary level, while secondary enrollment rose from 47% to 54% (World Bank, 1995). These increases were particularly notable in rural areas, where the Noriega regime had previously neglected public services. Additionally, literacy rates improved from 88% in 1990 to 91.5% in 1995, signaling better access to basic education and long-term investment in human capital (UNESCO, 1998). While these gains cannot be solely attributed to education reforms, they reflect a broader national effort to rebuild public trust in government institutions including schools as legitimate and functional arms of the state.

‍ ‍

In the longer term, Panama’s investment in civic education contributed to political stability by creating an electorate that was more informed and more engaged. For instance, voter turnout in national elections improved after reforms were implemented. In the 1994 presidential election, the first major post-reform election, voter turnout reached 78%, a significant increase from the contested and widely boycotted 1989 elections (Scranton, 1995). This significant level of electoral participation indicated to the electorate that the process itself was credible and meaningful, a direct correlation of enhanced civic involvement and institutional trust through education. Besides, emphasis on civic learning also improved the work of community-based organizations, NGOs, and youth programs, many that partnered with schools to take democratic learning out of the classroom (Lasso, 2007).

‍ ‍

Another instance where education contributed to democratic stability was when Panama incorporated the indigenous and Afro-Panamanian history within the national curriculum in the mid-1990s (UNESCO, 1998). Hitherto marginalized communities were portrayed in textbooks and school programmes, which helped dispel the ethnic tensions and strengthen the national identity that is more inclusive. This reform echoed the UNESCO recommendations on multicultural education, and proved that Panama was serious about utilizing education as the medium of reconciliation and unity (UNESCO, 1998). Through integration of divergent views within the educational narrative, Panama took steps toward a closer civic identity in favor of economic and social stability that mitigated the risk of breaking apart.

‍ ‍

Even in the face of continuing issues regarding educational equity and quality, this is not to imply that the post-intervention reforms in Panama show that even a moderately-resourced country can utilize its education system as a means by which to engage in the process of democratic consolidation and national mending. The addition of civic instruction and the change in ways education ministries are governed, as well as the increased exposure to schooling, all played a role in the overall stabilization process. Such changes have aided Panama in transforming from one that was militarized and authoritarian to one that was based on democratic norms and civic participation, and institutional legitimacy. In investing in curriculum reform, expanding education accessibility as well as promoting civic engagement, Panama set a strong base for post-intervention recovery—highlighting not only the crucial but sometimes neglected aspect of education in outcomes of regime change.

‍ ‍

To conclude, the overall successful stability and peace that reached Panama following the U.S. intervention of 1989 were a result of a combination of important factors. The negotiations of the Panama Canal and the return of the canal to Panama during this period evoked a sense of national unity and self-determination, whereas the economic recovery, during which financial support from the U.S. and the international community, though inadequate, paved the way for a lengthy expansion. The new institutional reforms and constitutional amendments provided the consolidation of the democratic institutions while the U.S. Military support played a role in the restoration of the civilian rule by removing the political system of the military in holding onto the power. Although Panama did not have an efficiently developed educational system before the intervention by the U.S., its democratic reforms following 1989 were of utmost importance for building democratic resilience and societal stability. Civic education played a critical role in the development of a new political culture that was built on democratic and peaceful coexistence values.

‍ ‍

In the case of Panama, prior to the 1989 U.S. intervention, it had established administrative and structural reforms in education since the 1960s which took on a latent but significant role in its post-intervention recovery. In 1964-1965, Panama undertook crucial reforms to streamline the educational administration, through the division of technical and administrative functions as a part of the ministry of education (UNESCO, 1966). The promotion of technical training and the handling of scholarship distribution became part of this development by creating institutions such as the Instituto para la Formación y Aprovechamiento de Recursos Humanos which was meant to address the link between education and national development. Quantitatively, the enrollment had an upward trend in Panama during this period. For example, public primary school had an enrollment of 185,960 students in the period of 1964–65 which is more than 9,000 students higher than the previous year, followed by the equivalent growth of teachers (UNESCO, 1966). These interventions were supported by international agencies such as USAID and UNESC0 which assisted in building hundreds of new classrooms and distributing textbooks in particularly underrepresented regions in rural areas.

‍ ‍

Curriculum development also became a priority. Panama introduced syllabi revisions, teacher training seminars and educational materials on citizenship, science and ethics which prepared the way for civic consciousness (UNESCO, 1966). Although under Noriega’s dictatorship the system was made politicized and weakened, the above mentioned reforms established a framework that was capable of being restored and further developed after the intervention. After the invasion by the U.S., democratic governments redoubled their efforts into civic education and restoring administrative transparency. Reforms following intervention along with Panama’s past educational infrastructure resulted in the country’s promotion of democratic stability through school-centered civic engagement and social solidarity.

‍ ‍

It is mostly the combination of U.S. strategic interests, limited degree of societal fragmentation and rapid and coordinated nature of institutional reform that stabilized Panama since its intervention. Unlike Iraq, Panama did not suffer from deeply entrenched ethnic or sectarian divisions. It may have not had the ethnic homogeneity, but it also did not have the kind of identity-based rivalries that paralyzed governance in post-invasion Iraq. Panama was not doing so well in terms of the social cohesion but that was enough to be able to produce a collective national reaction to the intervention. Furthermore, the U.S. interest in the security of operating the Panama Canal without interruption further motivated continuous involvement. This geopolitical leverage meant that the U.S. continued to participate actively in Panama’s political stabilization with the provision of security guarantees and institutional assistance to the new civilian government. The swift purge of military influence, supplemented with judicial and electoral changes, facilitated the sustainable re-establishment of Panama’s political environment and hindered the type of vacuum that follows interventions in other post-contexts.

‍ ‍

Further, Panama was without a strong pre-intervention bureaucracy nor fully developed system of civic education, but it had a pre-intervention base of administrative planning and of external educational investment from the 1960s. This earlier groundwork (like creation of educational councils, teacher trainings, and foreign-aided school buildings) paved way for fast growth of civic instruction after the intervention. Post 1989 governments were able to rebuild and make improvements with such relative efficacy. Activated international organizations such as USAID and UNESCO continue to provide educational and institutional support to permitting Panama to operationalize reforms promptly. Unlike Iraq where reform attempts were impeded by intense mistrust, insurgency and bad coordination, Panama’s internal stability made the reforms to start sinking into the people. Thus, the success of Panama is based on the interaction of the U.S. strategic contribution, minimal internal opposition, and the presence of basic administrative and educational infrastructure – and therefore it is a very valuable, although exceptional, example of the analysis of the U.S. sponsored regime transitions.

‍ ‍

Conclusion

‍ ‍

Four factors contribute to U.S.-led regime change being successful in Japan and Iraq or not; pre-existing democratic institution, economic investment, educational reforms, and ethnic homogeneity. Japan with its well-developed bureaucratic institution, the choice of economic recovery, educational reform in the process of delivering the notion of democracy, well-knit society, could become a stable democracy under the guidance of the United States. While Iraq has had no well-established bureaucracy, mismanaged its economy, disregarded the education, and battled with profound sectarian divisions. The U.S Iraq occupation fell short because they destroyed old institutions without a proper strategy of governance, awaited development efforts as a whole, disdained instructional changes, and ignored the influence of sectarian tensions. Such an extreme contrast highlights the need for liberal leadership to take these very conditions into account prior to a regime change in any country. In addition, case studies like Panama present the unique contrast with the Iraq and Japan instances where the Panama’s post-intervention stability was comprised largely of the existing U.S. economic interests, including the control over the Panama canal. The Panama case, with its unique blend of economic, political, and geopolitical factors, offers a valuable insight into the complexity of U.S. interventions and should be studied to determine the changing contours of post-intervention stability.

‍ ‍

Although this paper presents a comparative analysis of the regime change outcomes associated with the U.S.-led regime change in Japan, Iraq, and Panama, there are still various limitations to it. A crucial limitation was access to a wealth of recent data regarding political, educational, and bureaucratic developments within Panama’s post-intervention era. Moreover, due to the scope of the paper, it was impossible to delve into the details of all relevant variables – for instance, the significance of international organizations, civil society actors, or the impact of media – that may have influenced the post-intervention outcomes. The research used secondary sources heavily as well because of time constraints, and this hampered the ability to add general interviews or archives that would provide more knowledgeable ideas. Lastly, the paper relies on three case studies although proceeding to generalizability with a larger sample of countries in different geopolitical and institutional settings was necessary. Despite these limitations, the paper aims to offer a useful framework for understanding the complexity of regime change outcomes.

‍ ‍

However, further research is needed to better understand the long-term outcomes of U.S.-led regime changes, especially in the context of varying national conditions. While this study focused on four primary factors; bureaucratic strength, education, economic support, and ethnic homogeneity—future research should investigate how these factors interact with others, such as civil society development, media freedom, transitional justice mechanisms, and external diplomatic pressures. In particular, examining the role of local agency and bottom-up reform efforts could provide insight into how internal dynamics either complement or resist externally imposed structures. Future studies should also assess the effectiveness and sustainability of governance reforms over time, not just during the immediate post-intervention period. The role of human capital, including youth engagement and the return of exiled professionals, warrants deeper analysis as a factor in democratic consolidation. Additionally, comparative work that includes failed or partial transitions in cases like Libya or Syria could further illuminate the conditions under which regime change is most likely to succeed or unravel.

‍ ‍

These findings are important for U.S. foreign policy because they show the cost of U.S. action without a post-war strategy. The underlying theoretical framework applies in most cases; thus, the need for future interventions must ensure that the political, economic, educational, and social foundations necessary for stability are in place before attempting democratic reconstruction. The discovery from Iraq would be that nation-building requires long-term commitment, inclusive governance strategies, and structured economic aid to mitigate the formation of power vacuums and sectarian violence. Japan’s success and Iraq’s failure show that democracy requires a foundation of institutional capacity, economic stability and social cohesion on which it can be built and that cannot be simply imposed through force. Looking forward, the U.S. would have to take a more calculated and informed approach, preferring to choose diplomacy over intervention, seeking economic engagement rather than militarism, and focusing on local politics instead of hurried military action.

‍ ‍

References

‍ ‍

Arif, B. H., Khoshnaw, S. H., & Kareem, H. M. (2018). The role of citizenship education in developing democracy in Iraq. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 5(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v5i2p152

‍ ‍

Bellin, E. (2004). The Iraqi intervention and democracy: The pitfalls of imposing democracy by force. Brookings Institution.

‍ ‍

Byman, D. (2003). Constructing a democratic Iraq: Challenges and opportunities. International Security, 28(1), 47–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137575

‍ ‍

Denison, B. (2020). The failure of regime-change operations. Policy Analysis, 883.

‍ ‍

Dobbins, J., McGinn, J. G., Crane, K., Jones, S. G., Lal, R., Rathmell, A., Swanger, R., & Timilsina, A. (2003). America’s role in nation-building: From Germany to Iraq. RAND Corporation.

‍ ‍

Dobbins, J., Poole, M. A., Long, A., & Runkle, B. (2008). Post–World War II nation-building: Germany and Japan. In After the war: Nation-building from FDR to George W. Bush. RAND Corporation.

‍ ‍

Downes, A. B., & Monten, J. (2013). Forced to be free? Why foreign-imposed regime change rarely leads to democratization. International Security, 37(4), 90-131.

‍ ‍

Furlong, W. L. (1993). Panama: The Difficult Transition towards Democracy. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 35(3), 19-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/165968

‍ ‍

Haddad, F. (2012). Sectarianism in Iraq: Antagonistic visions of unity. Oxford University Press.

‍ ‍

Islam, M. N. (2005). Regime changes, economic policies and the effect of aid on growth. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1467-1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500187828

‍ ‍

Kingma, K. L. (2012). Democratic transitions in divided states: The case of Iraq [Master’s thesis, University of Denver]. Digital Commons @ DU. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/848

‍ ‍

Lasso, M. (2007). Race and Ethnicity in the Formation of Panamanian National Identity. Revista Panameña de Política, 4. https://www.academia.edu/download/31136194/4-06-Race-Ethnicity_Marixa_Lasso.pdf

‍ ‍

Neeson, K. (2008). Lessons in nation-building: The American reconstruction of Germany and Japan. E-International Relations.

‍ ‍

Panama's Constitution (1972, rev. 2004). Retrieved from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions/panama_2004.pdf

‍ ‍

Park, B. (2004). Iraq’s Kurds and Turkey: Challenges for US policy. Parameters, 34(3), 18–29. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol34/iss3/11

‍ ‍

Ropp, S. C. (1992). Explaining the long-term maintenance of a military regime: Panama before the US invasion. World Politics, 44(2), 210-234. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010447

‍ ‍

Scranton, M. E. (1992). Panama’s Democratic Transition. Midsouth Political Science Journal, 13, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1992.13.0.107-128

‍ ‍

Scranton, M. E. (1995). Panama's first post-transition election. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 37(1), 69-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/166217

‍ ‍

Stradiotto, G. A. (2004). Democratizing Iraq: Regime transition and economic development in comparative perspective. International Journal on World Peace, 21(2), 3–36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753438

‍ ‍

Sullivan, M. P. (1992). Panama-US Relations: Continuing Policy Concerns. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. http://li.proquest.com/elhpdf/histcontext/CRS-1992-FND-0111.pdf

‍ ‍

Thomas-Brown, K., & Fossum, P. R. (2022). The Education System of Panama: Perspectives from Revolution to Independence. In The Education Systems of the Americas (pp. 825-854). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

‍ ‍

Vrtiska, S. (2019). Nationalism and education: A case study of Germany and Japan. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

‍ ‍

UNESCO. (1966). UNESCO International Bureau of Education. International Yearbook of Education, 27, 269–273. https://doi.org/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000182086

‍ ‍

World Bank. (1995, March 17). Panama Issues in Basic Education.

‍ ‍

Yasiry, E. A. (2020). Post-2003’s war: US' failure in political and economic restructure of Iraq. Social Development and Security, 10(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2020.10.5.1

‍ ‍

Joseph Hovsep

Does U.S. Regime Change Leads to Instability

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Political Science

California State University, Los Angeles

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

In

Political Science

By:

Joseph Hovsepian

May 2025

Copyright Page

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT