In a previous post, a friend and I had a largely academic debate about what to consider when evaluating whether to support growing democracies. Despite all of our back and forth and a seeming resolution, I still feel like I don't know whether the argument was over semantics and word usage or whether there was a real difference of opinion about American foreign policy. Well, there is no better way to find out than to explore real world examples. Here it goes.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
4 comments:
On the whole, I'm not in much disagreement with you. Perhaps if there is disagreement, it is my unwillingness to rest much of anything on faith, and my cynicism that those who are often championing democracy are often those least interested in it.
Lets start with Venezuela. Your description of the nation as a democracy is almost laughable. That a nation ruled by former general who sought to lead a military junta; who is bent on lifelong rule (and now, with passage of the referendum authorizing it, very well could); who regularly imprisons political opponents, puts journalists in leg irons and revokes the licenses of media operators who oppose him; who has no respect for separation of powers, clenching his fist around the judiciary and the legislature in Venezuela; who consorts with some of the most vile human creatures in South America and across the world, and who exhibits a pattern, with increasing frequency, of widespread political intimidation; that that nation could be viewed as democratic is patently absurd.
Additionally, the idea the Venezuelan government exhibits no threat to the United States is also somewhat inaccurate, given Chavez appreciation for comrades of anti-americanism, whether they be tyrants or brutal theocrats, and has a special bond with Ahmadinejad, who, aside from his refusal to respond to international law, continues to funnel money and materials to organizations bent on killing civilians.
We don’t want just democracy, what we want is stable democracy. That is significantly more difficult to achieve. A tyranny authorized by plebiscite is still a tyranny, and is no more goal-worthy than a junta. There are plenty of popularly elected governments around the world. The greatest test of their legitimacy is when they allow their citizens to refuse their continuance in power, abnegate their powers and responsibilities, and retreat out of government, respecting their opponent’s authority.
Democracy is more than a set of procedural values. Yes, it is all well and good if there is an active group of citizens, living under a dictator, to be agitating for free and open elections. But if they are agitating so fiercely for this procedure simply to return the favor and seek vengeance, then is that what we want?
I haven’t been convinced that supporting these procedures, simply to give rise to leaders who are bent on lifelong, violent and theocratic rule leads to greater freedom and liberty. I support the development of stable, free democracies. But it isn’t clear to me that kneejerk short-term support of the mechanisms of democracy lead to the kind-of widespread civility and socioeconomic values essential to its long-term viability.
Your example of Egypt and Mubarak is a great example. The Bush Administration went out on quite a limb to pressure Mubarak into opening free elections. And then when the first parliamentary elections came around, and the Muslim Brotherhood performed admirably well, he crushed them like any other dictator would, with the reprehensible use of brutal force. Did this set the cause of liberty and democracy forward? Perhaps a less ham-handed approach to the matter would have been better, and perhaps the Bush administration could have been stronger in their reaction to Mubarak’s brutality instead of withering in the face of their reality that “they need Mubarak.”
But I consistently return to the fact that I do not believe that democracy first is always the best answer. The successful election of Hamas was the inevitability of the open elections in Palestine. And it is hard to imagine successful peace negotiations as long as Hamas--an organization whose very existence is contingent on the belief of eliminating the nation of Israel—remains in power. Given the context, is providing the political mechanisms to give the rise to people dedicated to non-democratic power at all worthwhile? I do not think so.
This isn’t to say that we should be so selective in our support for democracies so that we only “permit” those we know will be our political or economic allies. That’s not what I’m suggesting, although I understand my position could be easily confused as such. It is simply to say that the story of “new” democracies of the past decades has been a sad tale indeed, stories full of bathos, of great hopes quickly crushed by the temptations of power.
I’m not sure what the answer is. Perhaps it is a fostering of the structural supports necessary for a flourishing democracy: supporting civil discourse, tolerance for diverse viewpoints, a freer media, economic freedom, an independent judiciary, a civilian-led military, etc. It is hard to imagine a democracy existing without these prior institutions existing, or at the very least, a consensus viewpoint that they are valuable to have
First, let me apologize for being a bit behind the curve on Venezuela. I didn't realize the referendum to eliminate presidential term limits had passed. I was happy to see that referendum fail the first time (must have been years ago), and considered it a good sign for democracy. That one factor - that it did pass - does change my view of the country a good deal.
However, I think its ability to threaten us is exaggerated. Strongly disagreeing with America, especially in countries where our involvement has been selfish and had negative consequences on their populations, should not be considered dangerous unless they actually call for and contribute to violence.
I would also take issue with your interpretation of elections in Egypt and Palestine. In neither case was the group we opposed given a chance to govern before we shut them down (or tacitly condoned their removal). I would like to see if Hamas, which won in part because they promised more effective delivery of services, could be a better government than Abbas and Fatah.
I believe that having to lead a government moderates groups. Right now, Hamas is unaccountable. When their actions lead to Israeli invasions (justified or not), they cannot be voted out and their approach cannot be discredited. If they were in government it could be.
The one drawback to this approach, which you are wise to point out, is that by letting a group like Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood or a leader like Chavez take power, it may not be possible to remove them. And, to be honest, it may not moderate them (especially if they feel they cannot be removed). I get that.
To me though, it seems like the alternative - supporting a pro-American dictator like Mubarak or ineffective groups like Fatah - is no better. I would rather take a chance on progress (and stick to core values at the same time) than remain stagnant.
This is especially true since I see few, if any, examples of democracy growing from dictatorships. If you have more knowledge of this, please share. South Korea is probably the only example I can think of - although I lack enough information to even say how good an example that is. Are there situations where someone like Mubarak set up the institutions necessary for Democracy to flourish while dictator and then allowed it to happen?
If not, it seems that our choice might be between a dictatorship that is pro-American, or a democracy that could verge toward dictatorship that is anti-American. The knee-jerk reaction is towards pro-American dictatorship. My reaction though is different. After all, if we are asking foreign governments to tolerate dissent, we should be able to tolerate dissent as well. And we should favor the type of government that is more likely to lead to democracy.
Post a Comment