January 22, 2008
Column: Let us not lose faith in democracy
President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” has run into the Middle Eastern sand. The president himself will be the last to recognise this. Speaking in the United Arab Emirates on January 13, he hailed a “great new era” of “the advance of freedom”. “My friends,” he proclaimed to the assembled sheikhs, “a future of liberty stands before you.” Then Mr Bush flew on to Egypt and lavished praise on President Hosni Mubarak, who threw into jail the last man to run against him for the presidency.
As Mr Bush traipsed around the Arab world, Freedom House – which monitors political and civil liberties – issued its annual report. It lamented that “2007 was marked by a notable setback for global freedom”. The lobby group pointed to events in south Asia, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. The bad news keeps on coming. The violence and instability surrounding the Kenyan and Pakistani elections has underlined the difficulties of holding democratic votes in relatively poor countries with deep ethnic and tribal divisions.
While Freedom House bemoans the setbacks to democracy in places such as Kenya, Pakistan and Egypt, there will be plenty of others who will shrug and say, in effect: “What did you expect?” The Bush administration has been naive. It is pointless – and often counter-productive – trying to push democracy in countries that are not ready for it. Stability and economic growth must come first.
Continue reading this column here.
It is not that Africans or Asians are in the least “unsuited” for democracy. What else but a burning passion for democracy and the rule of law could be the meaning of the mass protests against the stolen elections in Kenya and Pakistan, and the brave resistance of the ordinary people of Burma that has had so little effect on the rest of the world?
Nor does it make much sense to argue that a country is unsuitable for democracy if its per capita income is too low. Clearly, as is the case in so much of Africa and elsewhere, a country is going have a low per capita income if a ruling kleptocracy is stealing its national wealth and siphoning it off to foreign banks, often with the tacit support, if not the active assistance, of rich country governments and business interests more concerned with “stability”, resources, geopolitical games and business as usual than with elementary justice and human rights.
Mr. Rachman is, of course right to use the word “hypocritical” in describing George W. Bush’s highly selective interest in “democracy”. But President Bush’s foreign policy (not to mention that of his counterparts in Russia and China) is so cynical as to be beyond mere hypocrisy. And how strong is his commitment to democracy at home, in the land of Guantanamo, waterboarding, disenfranchisement of minority voters and claims to unlimited executive power?
Posted by: Semakweli | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 am | Report this commentChina Daily is right, Western style democracy is not suited to all. The party system is extremely divisive. Even in the US for example, the country is largely polarized down party lines. In countries which have managed to make violence and tribalism taboo this system can work acceptably but it is dogmatic to believe that it will magically work where these conditions do not exist.
However this does absolutely not mean that democracy, in the more general sense, is not suitable for these countries. Instead, what is needed is a more consensus-building style of democracy. I am unsure whether such a model exists (Switzerland?) but if it does not it should certainly be possible to develop it.
Posted by: OscarD | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 am | Report this commentThe mass protests in Kenya and Pakistan mainly do not have to do with democracy. Rather they signify inter-ethnic confrontations.
Democracy is the final phase in the development of western-style individualistic civil society. I think the issue is only indirectly linked to national income. Rather the main determinant is sociological (of course economics and institutions are interlinked). As The Economist pointed out in a leader in its latest edition, as long as societites are organised along ethnic or tribal lines, the viability as well as the appropriateness of western-style democracy is in question: if people support a candidate only because he represents their ethnic group, such elections will only be superficially similar to the political process in a democracy, and such competition could conceivably lead to further inter-ethnic strife — witness the case of the Lebanon, as well as Kenya.
But giving up on democracy in developing nations seems in itself a bad idea, a sure fig leaf for corrupt autocracies and dictatorships. Probably there is no neat answer, but plenty of scope for fresh thinking within think-tanks.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am | Report this commentGR>>”The Bush administration has been naive.” Mr Rachman is as naïve as a fox.
“Democracy” is today a mediatised word and little more. All one needs to do is have occasion to be subjected to a presentation on a “foreign project” by one of Washington’s corporate affairs firms, i.e., Burston Marstellar or Sawyer Miller, to understand how it has been abused. Mr Rachman knows full well how Condoleeza Rice and George Bush are programmed to use this word to advance agendas/projects that are, at best, raw capitalism.
Where is the democracy in shareholder-value, consumer-driven capitalism? The US is today more divided as an economy than it has been in a century. Normally, one would think the market’s ongoing convulsions would help rebalance, but as other columnists have duly noted, the debt-burdened taxpayer/consumer is not the object of concern.
Sad and patronising faces reflect the neocon’s sense of noblesse oblige that one must, regretably, protect wealth in their Malthusian world of diminishing resources by tending to the masses like sheep, i.e., securing/managing them behind walls, borders and fences. Globalisation and its freedoms cannot really be for all.
Again, GR’s analysis is certainly not that of an economist, but it should help advance his CV at Sawyer-Miller.
Sorry, Gideon, but your current run of insights is not working for me.
Posted by: WCM | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am | Report this comment“Russia’s per capita GDP is now more than $8,000 a head, but its democracy is sliding backwards.”
Lie. Look to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ
12,200 (2006)
Posted by: Medved | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
The “Freedom Agenda” of the Bush administration is, as you say, delusional and hypocritical (and worse), because it was an afterthought and a fraud.
The “Export of democracy by force of arms” was not on the horizon when the world was being prepared for the invasion of Iraq. It was all about confronting Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and the scare stories being told by Colin Powell, B Liar, et al, about the imminence of that threat.
It was only sometime after the occupation of Iraq ,and after it became that the WMD’s only existed in the rhetoric of NeoCon-Likudnik warmongers, that it became necessary to think up other excuses, such as installation of democracy.
All the previous and subsequent actions of the Bush regime have also been testimony to its disregard for freedom and democracy. (The support of Thug-ocracies in the Middle East, Pakistan, Central Asia and Africa, USA’s direct actions in Abu Ghraib, Gunatanamo and elsewhere and now the arming and financing of primitive Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq that will potentially amount to Taliban redux are just some examples).
Therefore, since the whole concept of the was propagandistic and fraudulent, I humbly suggest we move on from discussing Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” and talk about something more useful.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am | Report this commentThe big mistake the US made in the past eight years was to back the wrong guy. While the country wasted billions and billions of dollars on societies not wanting democracy, it ignored the very countries that have passionately embraced democracy and needed support. I am thinking of, for example, Mongolia. If the US had poured the resouces into those countries, the world would be a more stable place.
To put it simply, the US can always respond with force to any undemocratic country that threatens it. To “export” democracy is not necessary. But where people are saying ‘hey! come on over!’, the US should have been generous and focused.
The result now, I am afraid, is not only angry, pissed off undemocratic countries, but also angry, pissed off democratic countries. That is a bad state of affairs.
Posted by: Frank Fields | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentRegarding the relation of per capita income to democracy:- Surely, the way that the income is earned is also relevant. A relatively high average income (and a reasonable distribution of it) that is earned by manufacturing or trading, implies a society that benefits from high education and good organisation and it is not surprising that democracy should find a fertile ground there.
However, when the wealth is based on mineral resources (probably discovered only in the last few decades) where the technology for the exploitation comes from abroad (e.g. most Arab oil kingdoms), the high per capita incomes are not necessarily accompanied by education, experience and sophistication. You simply get a transfer from tent-dwelling to palace dwelling (I believe Mr. Gadhafi still prefers living in tents) without any change in the mentalities and perceptions. Again, it is not a surprise that the tribal ways have continued in those places despite explosive income growth.
My 2 cents (or even 2 rials!)
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Report this commentGideon, you mentioned “The constituency for enlightened despotism is strong among businessmen, such as those now assembling in Davos for the World Economic Forum.”
If possible, please further elaborate on your thoughts.
Also if possible, I would like to get your opinion on whether you feel that multinational corporations would be more in favour of the autocratic-capitalist system emerging in China or more in favour of the democratic-capitalist system say in the USA or the UK?
Posted by: Patrick Michael | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Report this commentGideon - good post and a great topic for discussion. Bush’s agenda seems to have foundered on the rocks that separate the idealism of his early tenure and the realism of his latter years. It is clear that he would still like to be pressing the freedom agenda forward, but the real disaster of Iraq is that it is now impossible for him to do so, at the expense of securing short term US interests. And this is the fundamental problem - timescale.
To my mind the US needs to devise a foreign policy, based on the freedom agenda, which will still be relevant in 10, 20 or 50 years. Because in the long term it is only this agenda which will serve its interests. Look at the alternative - the realist agenda, which provides short term security at the expense of long term goals. American intervention in WW1 and WW2 only happened after isolationist agendas, offering short term security, allowed threats to emerge. Lebanon anyone? Somalia perhaps? Both of these directly led to where we are today. A strategic framework for a 50 year foreign policy has been achieved before - look at the post war period.
OscarD - the one party system is generally extremely divisive as well: but its generally the people Vs the party. What could possibly be more consensus building, in the real world, than a majority-based voting system?
WCM - The democracy in shareholder value is the very essence of that concept - the shareholder can buy or sell shares, in the same way that the voter can vote for or vote against any particular candidate or party. What could be clearer (at least to the anglo-saxon way of thinking)? However divided the US is (and there is no doubt it should be doing better) there are plenty of places where the divisions are even worse, France, Russia, China, and on and on and on. How are any of those countries a better model than the US? And I am completely baffled by your paragraph confusing the “Neocons” with the whole of the global elite. Perhaps you’d better stick to the blogs at Le Monde if you’re not prepared to argue your case instead of complaining about the concept.
P - something more useful being Iranian human rights, support for terrorist groups and the general reign of terror that the messianic cult have created in that country instead?
Posted by: AYC | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
I think support for terrorism is exactly what you are calling for! You are saying that America should spend the next 10, 20, 50 years shoring up the terrorist state of Israel by attacking other Middle Eastern nations and call it idealism and freedom.
Apparently this is quite a mainstream position inyour neck of the woods:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338408&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm | Report this commentIt’s hardly JUST the Bush administration that is selective…what great minds decided to provide Musharraf a forum and his tottering regime some legitimacy at DAVOS allowing him to discuss how he intends to bring democracy to Pakistan? If Pakistan’s state of democracy was to be on the agenda at DAVOS why not invite the former chief justice Of pakistan who still remains under house arrest?
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Report this commentP - good example of a strawman argument. However, Metzger was probably thankful he was free of the threat of Saddam’s scuds. If you cast your mind back to the first gulf war one might think he’s got a point.
Posted by: AYC | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
About victimhood, this is a web site that you should enjoy:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Just look at the relative numbers in each category.
Dear AYC,
The good Rabbi is not exactly a straw man. He is the chief rabbi, no?
Also, somebody else kindly posted about another Rabbi the spiritual leader of the Shas party saying send missile etc. (see the thread about Neocons.) What good for the goose….
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Reminds me of that book: ‘How to lie with statistics’. Why don’t they break it down to militants and civilians? How many of the Israeli victims were innocent civilians intentionally targeted by suicide bombers versus how many of the Palestinian death roll were terrorist militants?
However I did note that Israel has been targeted by 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians by none — which just goes to show the bias of the international community against Israel. Well, I guess it’s not technically possible to adopt resolutions against non-state actors like murderous terrorist groups. Too bad for the victims.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this commentDear Gideon,
Posted by: Clyde Jorgensen | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm | Report this commentAs an American citizen, I am sad to say that I have found the whole Bush administration to be cynical, delusional and hypocritical. Unfortunately, most of the political leaders of the world’s countries share the same traits.
RCS’s comment that the turmoil in Kenya and Pakistan is due to inter-ethnic conflicts rather than stolen elections is, with all due respect, typical of the smug western attitude that assumes that non-European peoples are not sufficiently developed to care about “advanced” political theory such as stolen ballots, locking up independent judges, and, in some countries, murdering or jailing opposition leaders in order to rig elections, but that they are only interested in killing people of a different “tribe”.
This is not to say that tribalism is unimportant in the above two countries (and elsewhere) but it is also true that both countries have developed constitutional systems, albeit ones based based on British colonial models, which would work much better if they were not being undermined by military dictatorship and/or rampant corruption, supported in each case by western business and geopolitical interests. It is time for all of us in the west to move beyond the condescending attitude that refuses to recognize that darker skinned people care just as passionately about democracy as do those with lighter skins.
On another note, since Messrs. Rachman and Kagan evidently did not have the time or space to answer a question I had asked concerning whether the US is moving closer to the Russian/Chinese authoritarian capitalist model, I would like to take the liberty of rephrasing the question here: In George W. Bush’s America of Guantanamo, rendition, secret prisons, warrantless spying, excessive secrecy, claims of unlimited “unitary” executive power, and waterboarding, is it not the height of arrogance and presumption to claim that the US is the leader of the “democratic” camp? Is not the truth, rather, that all three of the world’s superpowers are already authoritarian to a large extent, differing only in degree? And is it not also true that the US political system is already so unrepresentative because of the overwhelming influence of money, that our elections are almost as much rigged as those in Pakistan and Kenya, but only, perhaps, in a more subtle way.
Posted by: Roger Algase | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentP, I was (of course) referring to your argument, but I know you’re joking…you’re such a kidder!
Just one serious point though. Whatever any Rabbi says is just that - words - which you can take or leave as you want. Bit more difficult in theocracies to ignore religious figures though isn’t it? As all the homosexuals, adulterers, liberal women, Baha’i, Zoroastrians, children (not to mention trade unionists and common criminals) who have been tortured, mutilated, stoned and beheaded across the middle east bear witness.
Posted by: AYC | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
When Rabbis are Chief Rabbis in a religiously-based state and when they are leaders of parties with 4 cabinet seats, what they say matters. Moreover, Israel practises exactly the kind of violence that these rabbis preach.
best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Report this commentDear P - if you think Shas or the Chief Rabbis dictate state security policy, then you are a much worse reader of Israeli politics than I had given you credit for. My apologies!
Posted by: AYC | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Report this commentAYC…Well, that’s rich coming people who hold up Ahmadinejad as the second coming of Adolph Hitler… you’d be interested to read this btw:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2244615,00.html
As you can see, the putative Adolph has been bitch-slapped with consummate ease!
Best,
P
PS: I didn’t say the chief Rabbi or Shas “dictate” security policy. I said the government’s behaviour is consistent with what the two rabbis have preached and also that they are influential.
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentVery interesting. Just goes to show that in Iran the Ayatollah’s word is literally law. Unlike in Israel.
But I’m sure Adolf Ahmadinejad will be back, perhaps hosting another conference “questioning” the holocaust, or maybe with a few more choice comments about wiping Israel off the map.
Posted by: AYC | January 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentIf Ahmadinejad, in future, talks about wiping Israel off the map, it will be the first time he has said so:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
and:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Meanwhile, Palestine has been subjected to ethnic cleansing (wiping off the map) by the Zionists.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this commentP, Any word on the ethinc cleansing suffered by the Ahwazis? “The regime is encouraging ethnic Persians to settle on the land confiscated from Ahwazi Arab farmers by placing advertisements in Faris-speaking provinces and cities.”
http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/02/ethnic-cleansing-in-full-force-in-iran.html
Posted by: AYC | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
At best you are not defending your own position but trying to attack others’.
However, you have drawn a blank here.
This is not a serious web site. It is run by somebody who sits in England and runs this web site as a hobby.
It does not represent any body of opinion and its “facts” are egregious lies for example this one “For some 500 years, the region was called Arabistan by Persian rulers”.
There are Arabs in Iran but they do not refer to themselves as “Al Ahwazi”. Ahwaz is simply one of the major towns in that part of Iran. It is not an ethnicity.
Finally, as it happens, speaking and teaching of Arabic is very much encouraged in post-revolution Iran due to its religious connotations.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this comment