Exporting Democracy
We've seen it doesn't work. Jonathan Rauch writes in Reason of Amitai Etzioni's argument that we export security instead, "the soil in which democracy can take root":
If you want to discuss foreign policy in the age of terrorism, try consulting an ex-terrorist. As a teenager in the 1940s, Etzioni was a fighter in the Palmach, a Jewish insurgent group that tried to bomb the British out of what was then Palestine. The group aimed at infrastructure, not people, but Etzioni says the experience gave him a lifelong appreciation of the awfulness of war and the centrality of security.Today, pondering the presidential race, Etzioni sees ample criticism of Bush, but nothing resembling an overarching alternative to the Bush Doctrine. American foreign policy needs a positive vision with a moral basis. But exporting democracy, Etzioni says, isn't it.
Why not? First, the Bush Doctrine suffers from Multiple Realism Deficiency Disorder. Democracy grows gradually from within, by stages, and cannot be imposed from without. The Bush Doctrine thus promises what it can't deliver. In any case, Washington often has little practical choice but to cooperate with friendly authoritarian regimes, such as those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; we can't expect cooperation from regimes we're working to overthrow.
All of that you have heard before. Etzioni's signature contribution is an intriguing second argument. Putting democratization at the center of U.S. foreign policy, he says, is counterproductive. It turns against America millions of the very people it needs to win over: illiberal moderates.
The Muslim world is full of people who aver support for democracy. But comparatively few mean liberal, secular democracy, which is what Americans mean. Instead, they mean a combination of democracy and theocracy that Americans would not recognize as liberal-democratic at all. For example, they tell pollsters they want democracy while also saying their governments should be more Islamic.
These people reject American-style social liberalization, such as equality for women, which Americans regard as a democratic linchpin. On the other hand, the great majority of them abhor violence. Thus, writes Etzioni, "major segments of the Muslim world are neither pro-liberal-democracy nor pro-violence."
These "illiberal moderates," he argues, are "a kind of global 'swing vote,' " far outnumbering both illiberal extremists (who support violence) and liberal moderates (who support Westernization). A democratization agenda that implies American-style liberalization strikes illiberal moderates as a threat to their religion, not a promise of freedom. No wonder the Bush Doctrine offends them in droves.
But most of them will gladly support an American foreign policy in which basic security heads the agenda. Note the word "basic." To provide basic security, in Etzioni's framework, a government need not have a spotless human-rights record, independent courts, or even elections. It must merely protect its own people from genocide and ethnic cleansing, and refrain from invading other countries, supporting international terrorism, and posing a nuclear threat. If a regime provides that much internal and external security, the United States should promise not to overthrow it—even if it is unsavory or unfriendly in other respects.
Of course, the United States will still care about, and advocate, democratization and other core values. But top priority should go to basic security, on which everything else depends.
Realists insist that stability is the precondition for democracy; neocons, that democracy is the precondition for stability. Etzioni is saying that basic security is the precondition for both, a lesson stingingly learned in Iraq. "In Iraq our problem was that we did not focus on security," he says. "We focused on trying to build another America."
Etzioni's book -- Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy.
He speaks good sense. Basic security would be the way to go about it and let the people get their situation together, but we must be there for other than democratic purposes given the way Iraq is turning out.
kbling at February 8, 2008 5:50 AM
Frogwash!
Crid at February 8, 2008 5:59 AM
If a regime provides that much internal and external security, the United States should promise not to overthrow it—even if it is unsavory or unfriendly in other respects.
You mean - say - Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
Rational_Skeptic at February 8, 2008 6:29 AM
This is so superficial my teeth hurt. All sorts of people see fit to comment because the American military, hobbled by having to act as police, aren't smashing their way to victory in 100 hours, then leaving.
The occupation of Iraq has just two strategic points: it demonstrates that we care nothing for another nation's borders, and the establishment of a secular democracy, if successful, would defuse Islam as the central point of life in the Middle East, thus showing the rest of Islam that prosperity depends on honest trade and widespread alliances based on trust (never a big part of Arab society). Yes, each of these has consequences.
But Iraq gets treated by most people like the stains on Monica's dress. Some things are so fascinating people can't see anything else (Isn't it amazing that you instantly know who "Monica" is, and what the stain was?).
Radwaste at February 8, 2008 7:13 AM
I don't think democracy or anything close to it is possible in any country in which a majority or large number of the population is Muslim, as Islam is a collectivist, totalitarian-run religion antithetical to the freedoms of the individual of democracy. Muslims are slaves to Islam and the religious police who enforce it, and I don't see that changing unless they become largely secular -- unlikely to happen.
Amy Alkon at February 8, 2008 7:25 AM
I tire of the liberal (note the little 'l') trope of false originality. This is an ancient question, one dealt with at length by Polybius [The Peloponnesian War], with a passing utility by Machiavelli [Discourses on Livy], and ignored by modern political analysts.
Democracy doesn't develop from either security nor security from Democracy, nor does either develop from basic security. This is all to confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.
During the American Revolution, where was basic security? Nowhere. Where was security? Nowhere. Where was Democracy? Nowhere. Indeed, it was the lack of all three that provoked the colonists to revolt, and to revolt against the most powerful expeditionary Army in the world! Talk about a lack of security. So how did Democracy emerge? From ideology. The colonists believed in the idea of The Rights of Englishmen. To secure those rights, they conducted war and then established a secure state.
Democracy and liberal society are ideas. there is no necessary nor any sufficient condition for an idea to develop from any particular set of circumstances. Western liberal intellectuals, paradoxically, cannot grasp that the issue is ideology not just circumstances. Facts, the plain evidences of circumstances, themselves explain nothing. Everything is explained by theories and interpretations --- which are ideas.
Culture consists of interpretations and theories. Therefore, Democracy and security and "basic security" arise from society. Society preceeds any notion of security or polity. Certain cultural ideas are necessary and suffient for the development of Democracy. Some circumstances may be necessary, but they are never sufficient.
Jeff at February 8, 2008 7:39 AM
Certain cultural ideas are necessary and suffient for the development of Democracy. Some circumstances may be necessary, but they are never sufficient.
And the problem is, Islam is not open to even entertaining the cultural idea of Democracy, simply because there is no room for democracy in that culture. The leaders, and therefore, the society of Islam, refuse to acknowledge the very idea of democracy. It goes against everything that Islam stands for, and they're still stuck in that 7th century mentality. But they sure are happy to amass 21st century wealth and use it against the rest of the world.
Flynne at February 8, 2008 7:51 AM
Okay, so what is the answer? Do you think it's possible to "export democracy" or any kind of sanity of rule for these countries?
I've always thought globalization was the best bet, but I'm not optimistic about any option.
Amy Alkon at February 8, 2008 8:05 AM
The solution is simple, speak softly and carry a big stick
Step 1 Isolation - dont let them leave their corner of the world until they are willing to grow up
Step 2 Economic Pressure - stop giving billions to regimes that spit out the terrorists attacking us, dont give port athority contracts to coutries that launder terrorist money, dont give 'humanistrian aid' to governments that fail to distribute that aid to their populace
Step 3 Political Pressure - call on our allies to do the same
Step 4 Set our own house in order - Adopt RESOANBLE guidlines for security, stop making us Xray our shoes and start doing a real job at sea ports and public transprot junctions
Step 5 Use the Military - Instead of using the military as a PR tool or peace keeping force use them for what they are for. If attacked set them loose, let them take out the enemy and destroy the enemys infrastructure and then pull them out.
Let them rebuild their own nations
lujlp at February 8, 2008 8:41 AM
Or we could just let the conservite plan for Iraq play out - the one where one day burka magically transform into bikinis and humvees turn into muscle cars for them to rub their tits on in a car wash
remember that family guy clip?
lujlp at February 8, 2008 8:54 AM
No, but even Neil's pessimistic anymore:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23069062/
At least he's a realist.
Flynne at February 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Meanwhile, they're having all the fun in France:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23065827/
Flynne at February 8, 2008 9:37 AM
We could just nuke em. The whole place. Then we can all swagger back to the pub and watch it happen on t.v. over and over again while sipping a bud ice or an apple martini. Hell, we could make up a new shooter! Something like...Absolute Black, Kahlua, and Razzmatazz. Add a drop of milk and a twist of lime. We'll call it .... iraqwhofuckyou. "Aye, Al...gimme a couple of iraqwhofuckyou's. No lime." Ten years from now someone will be like, "why do they call it that?" Just like they do now with black and tan's. Damn, it IS friday.
kg at February 8, 2008 9:38 AM
Right? Kg, you're a genious! So, please pass me a black and tan. I'll have a coupla those pretzels, too, spanks. Game o' darts, anyone? o_O
Flynne at February 8, 2008 10:02 AM
-Democracy grows gradually from within, by stages, and cannot be imposed from without.
If their (potential) leaders could have the luxury of (just enough) security (there is no absolute) to make the tough changes needed to see if the populace is accepting of (their own version of) democracy, then security is all that America should provide. Anything else is coercion. The Indians sure didn't care for the Euro-trash version of god, freedom... so they were coerced into believing it. American-style liberalization is a threat to their religion, not a promise of freedom (no matter how we choose to view their religion, atheist = me).
You can only lead a horse to water, you can't make 'em drink though. In that sense, if they are not thirsty enough for their own freedom then why do we grind our soldiers against a thousand years of religion when we haven't even been a democracy long enough to tell someone else how to do it!?!
kbling at February 8, 2008 10:48 AM
Japan was not too far out of feudalism when we imposed democracy on them.
Of course, we got unconditional and enforceable surrender, first.
JohnAnnArbor at February 8, 2008 11:52 AM
I don't see how the presented theory differs from "realpolitik". And within my lifetime, conservatives supported realpolitik, and liberals ripped them a new one for doing so. And eventually the conservatives took a hard look at the moral issues, and said to the liberals, "Maybe you've got a point." The Iraq War was the eventual direct result.
Now the American left wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want withdrawal from Iraq, but they still want to also rip conservatives for not being dedicated enough to propagating democracy. Liberalism has descended into outright fantasy: they really think that if conservatives would give them the magic wand (or, better yet, just disappear altogether), then the whole world would be Sweetness and Light and everyone would ride ponies and live on Big Rock Candy Mountain.
But the real flaw in Etzioni's argument is this: from now on, every illeberal (and I'm using the world "liberal" here in the classical sense) regime on Earth will sponsor terrorism. It's been shown to be too valuable a weapon for them to ignore it. So that really leaves Western civilization with very few choices. As is often said of democracy itself, the Bush Doctorine may be the second-worst foreign policy extant. But everything else is tied for worst.
Cousin Dave at February 8, 2008 11:55 AM
Ron Paul has a different take on what our foreign policy should be. RON PAUL 2008!!!!!
He is the only sane choice.
Melody at February 8, 2008 12:41 PM
So it turns out that Bush and Cheney are dumb-asses?! Who knew?
Jay R at February 8, 2008 1:57 PM
No, Jay, they are doing everything within the letter of the law, as set forth by Congress. You may have heard of it.
Radwaste at February 8, 2008 2:39 PM
Its a pity that americans no longer have a say in who get elected to the offices that make those "laws" isnt it?
lujlp at February 9, 2008 10:55 AM
The principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal. So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.
Rob at February 9, 2008 5:48 PM
Leave a comment