Scrapping the democracy project

Daniel Larison writes:

Democratization in recent years has not generally contributed to U.S. interests, and it certainly has not contributed to greater peace and security. From empowering Hamas to building up an aggressive nationalist demagogue in Georgia to boosting socialist “people power” in Bolivia and Venezuela to provoking ethnic conflict in Kenya, genuine democratic elections have produced a number of undesirable outcomes for the nations involved and for U.S. interests in their respective regions. The idea of “democratic peace” is a myth, and the politicization of ethnicity and religion that democratization has involved in many parts of Africa, Latin America and the Near East has led to terrible results. Why we should want more of this is a mystery, but like much related to the management of the empire this is something we are not supposed to challenge.

I would add that all of this is not to say that democracies aren't a good thing, or that nations around the world shouldn't move toward democracy, or some form of democracy, since I truly believe that despite all of its flaws, democracy is still the best of all possible political systems. However, what is lacking in all of the nations where the US has tried to impose it is both the rule of law, and a historical foundation of order and representative government. The United States was born out of the British history of a functional parliament, and traditions dating back to the signing of the magna carta. America was also a healthy group of colonies, with relatively high stability and rule of law.

Compare this to Iraq, a country with no history of liberty or representation of the people, founded in a region of the world that has been plagued with war, religious fueding, and totalitarianism in one form or another--or to Afghanistan which has only the tradition of tribal politics, and warlord feudalism. It's simply not good soil for democracy, and certainly not for imposed democracy.

I think a better means by which to export our ideals would be through example, through healthy trade, and through tireless diplomatic efforts. There is a time for force, for war, but it cannot be in order to instill something as fragile, and whose outcome is as unforeseeable, as democracy.

War between democracies?

Does this current conflict count as a war between democracies?

One could also argue that both World Wars had democratic elements to them. After all Germany was a democracy, if an extraordinarily imperfect one, as were the Allied nations. The First World War is a tougher sell, but even so, democratization had occurred to such a point that the war and war effort became almost populist--a dangerous development especially in regards to war and peace.

In any case, to my mind, while democracy is the worst option save for all the others, it is utterly useless without the rule of law, and similarly it is ineffectual at best, and likely temporary, without, as Havers puts it, "the triumph of western liberalism, or the reasonable toleration of minorities within a majoritarian democracy."

This is one of the huge flaws in the philosophy of democracy spreading. It's one thing to spread the ability to vote, but quite another to ensure elections are fair; quite another to ensure that a majority population doesn't just use their democratic advantage to extinguish all opposition.

Our understanding of democracy is flawed because we exist within it--not as outside observers. We exist within a functioning democratic society wherein the rule of law still, for the most part, holds fast. We have not used our powers of empathy enough when considering just how alien democracy must seem to inhabitants of the Middle East--or how opportunistic people in positions of power can be, and what a weapon anarchistic democracy can be. And that's what it is prior to the rule of law, security, etc. It is anarchistic, essentially a ballot box and a void. And as with all voids, something has to fill it--so you see this happening with fledgling democracies. They quickly become totalitarian States, or are overrun by militants or terrorists or authoritarian religious groups.

Remember, unlike our Founding Fathers, the Iraqis and the Palestinians did not have the Magna Carta in their history, nor Parliament, nor a sense even of "taxation without representation" and so had not fostered similar minds or mind-frames as our Founders were blessed with--who saw democracy as a dangerous thing that must be checked and balanced, tended to like a fire and just as deadly and intangible, with great power to do good or ill.

The fact is, democracy settled into American history organically. It was the natural conclusion to centuries of European political evolution and the geographical and technological realities of the day. Such is not the case, not even marginally, in the Middle East.

And so we see two democracies at war. One is that hollow version of democracy, that cheap generic "exported" variety that America thinks can be foisted on all the underdeveloped nations of the world, true. The other is a young, embattled democracy with great potential and great divisions. But they are both democracies, and it does appear that they are at war...

Read this...

It's an interesting take. And lately, I find myself falling more and more into this line of thinking.