Democratization II

First and needed step: define democracy. 

Difficult because different people hold the term “democracy” to have very different meanings.

From the Greek, democracy means rule by the people.  But the Greeks lived in tiny city-states in which democracy meant “direct democracy,” every citizen actively participating in his governance (every free male citizen). 

We started in this class with a basic definition of democracy that said that a democracy was a system in which 1) the people have a voice in how they are governed and 2) rights and freedoms are protected.

We are expanding that definition out today to understand the term "Western liberal democracy."  This refers to a type of democracy that includes:

1) ways for the people to participate in their own governance, but which is mediated by

2) representatives (size of the population makes direct democracy less workable). 

3) Western liberal democracy also includes checks on both majority will and state power.

Key elements then in the definition of democracy are going to be the number of rulers and the degree of personal freedom.

Put the countries we’ve looked at in the course on a graph.

US

Britain

France

Russia (USSR times)

Russia (ten years ago, today)

China (Maoist times)

China (today)

Iraq (Saddam)

Iraq (today)

India

Saudi Arabia

Placing countries on the graph should raise some issues:

1) Where are the democracies?

Top right quadrant: high freedom, high number of rulers

2) Democracy can vary in its quantity (how much democracy, how many of the people rule, the quality of elections, how meaningful they are, whether they are able to lead to peaceful changes of government, whether they are fair).

3) It can also vary in its quality (how free people are). Are they free to speak, protest against the government or other people, organize political parties to contest elections, organize political, educational, social groups to push various agendas-interest groups, parties).  

4) Neither democracy nor freedoms are all or nothing propositions.  In the US, not so free that you can kill someone because you feel like it. Can’t exercise your freedom such that it impinges on the freedoms of others to live their lives, etc. Can’t walk around naked. Can’t promote hate crimes. Can be arrested and held without access to courts (terrorism detainees). 

5) No perfect freedom and no perfect ill-freedom. Incapacity of man to enforce complete control all the time everywhere.  Similarly no perfect elections with all turning out, all equally informed, all equally able to participate and express their views, all equally able to organize political parties (tired, have to work), some places elections not perfect: dead people voting, people scared into not turning out, polls close early, not enough ballot papers.

6) Might ask ourselves if different levels of democracy are appropriate in different places? At different times?  Is this the place for the US in 2008? Will it be somewhere else in 2050?  How about South Korea? Did it have to traverse this path from ill-freedom to freedom? And is that path reversible? It was in Thailand with the Fall 2006 coup d’etat that a democratically elected but problematic prime minister was overturned by the military.

7) Are there cultural pre-conditions?  Some cultural features cited as supportive of democracy include tolerance, equality, and respect for law and process over personal relationships.  But does anyone have this until they have this?

Some say democracy is not appropriate in Muslim countries. Indonesia making headway. It’s a Muslim country with little past history of democracy to draw on. Learning values, learning to exercise choice.  Value: Respect for individual. Many Asian countries: deference to group has been common, respect for elders.  Singapore Lee Kuan Yew tried to put up this argument as a reason for Singapore's great economic success, now admits grandson may know best.

Larry Diamond gives a basic definition of democracy, as a system of government in which the people choose their leaders at regular intervals through free, fair, and competitive elections.

But, some consider use of this definition as the “electoral fallacy.”  They point out correctly that elections are used in most countries, but sometimes they are not free or fair or competitive.  Also, these “electoral democracies” can coexist with significant violations of human rights, massive corruption, and weak rule of law.  Thomas Carothers "hazy situations," elsewhere "gray areas," "feckless pluralism." 

An ideal definition of Western liberal democracy might include the presence of the following:

• Free speech
• Free press
• Meaningful elections
• Freedom to organize and protest
• Majority rule
• Protection of minority rights (but majority can't do anything it wants--that's mob rule)
• Independent judiciary and the rule of law
•         (reminder on rule of law: It means all are equal before the law and government is subject to law; this is different from rule BY law.)

Each element could experience variation from country to country.

Questions:

• How much free speech is enough? 
• How does each element play into making the operation of a Western liberal democracy possible? 
• Are there some features that are more important than others in deciding whether a country is a democracy?
• Is there only varying adherence to the democratic model, or is there somewhere we can draw the line and say this country is democratic and this country isn’t? 
• Are more countries becoming democracies?

Bush administration made it US policy to encourage democracy around the world.  President's National Security Strategy (2006): "The first pillar (of strategy) is promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity . . . . Free governments are accountable to their people, govern their territory effectively, and pursue economic and political policies that benefit their citizens. Free governments do not oppress their people or attack other free nations. Peace and international stability are most reliably built on a foundation of freedom." 

Two key points from this: 1) democracies are stable and moderate. 2) free people don't choose to fight other free people, so international system will be peaceful.

Should the US put democracy promotion at the forefront of its foreign policy?  YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE ANSWERS, BOTH PRO AND CON!!

US spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year fostering democracy abroad (not including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). 

Yes, the US should put democracy promotion at the forefront of its foreign policy.

• Democratic peace thesis (liberal).  Democracies prefer peaceful solutions—thus better for us, a more stable, peaceful international climate.  Snow mentions lots of caveats: It's not all democracies. It's established, open, tolerant-of-opposition liberal democracies that are less warlike.  Transitional regimes (semi-democratic in some way or another) are just as prone or perhaps even more prone to conflict as non-democratic regimes. Caveat frees us of trying to force the election of Hamas, which formally seeks Israel's destruction and uses terrorist tactics to achieve this goal, in the Palestinian territories in 2006 into the notion of democratic peace.
• Democracy a universal value we should strive for (liberal).
• Humans intimately connected with one another, should care about the suffering of others and try to do something about it (liberal, common humanity). Democracy will better protect people's rights.
• Human rights violators can also be labor rights violators and countries that impress political prisoners into labor are undercutting US workers, so should intervene to protect our own economy.
• Larry Diamond—if the world is to become democratic, the most powerful democracy cannot be passive or timid.  Reagan--America a "shining house on the hill."
• Also, promoting democracy can help prevent terrorism--diagnosis of cause of terror, but might also play into democratic peace thesis/liberalism above).
• Trends pointing toward democratization: internet, free media.  Destroying attempts by authoritarians to maintain control.  If stay out of new communications, fall on the wrong side of the digital divide, lose economically. 
• Globalization means firms will go to best places (in effect casting a vote on your regime). If not open, free, creative, hospitable, entrepreneurial will lose out in the economy today.  Singapore since late 1990s.
• Helping people to do what they want.  They want democracy. We're just helping to make that possible, not forcing our own system on them.  Snow points out existence of pro-democratic elites, as in China.
• Democracy the only legitimate way of ruling, with demise of many Communist regimes.
• Better for our economy too to engage in "enlargement" of the "circle of market democracies" in Clinton-era terminology. Greater freedom and prosperity for all.

NOTE: How to do democracy promotion: spectrum from: (least invasive) show in daily life how democracy works and is superior, publish human rights reports pointing out failings in other countries, aid democratic elements in a target society, aid only democratic countries, broadcast media/free information, support World Bank projects promoting access to Internet information, support exchange programs for scholars/journalists, underwrite election observers/elections, make allies of other democracies/train military, fund guerrilla groups fighting against authoritarian regimes, fight to put democracy in place (most invasive).

No, the US should not put democracy promotion at the forefront of its foreign policy.

• Shouldn’t impose our views on others (realist).
• Should make calculations of who our friends are based on national interest (realist).  Sometimes democracies can allow the very people who are most hostile to US interests to come to get elected (Hamas [Palestinian territories], Hizbollah [Lebanon]), Muslim Brotherhood [Egypt]).  Might actually create anti-Americanism by attempting to foist democratic systems.
• Democracies may be more peaceful with other democracies but research shows that democratizing countries are rather less peaceful.  Democracies are also no less warlike with non-democracies (anti-liberal).
• Amy Chua: Fostering democracy and free markets means fostering ethnic hatred and civil war (Rwanda, Philippines, Indonesia) as market-dominant minorities (Lebanese and Indians in Africa, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Tutsis in Rwanda) are targeted by majority communities.  “Introducing democracy . . . does not transform voters into open-minded co-citizens in a national community.  Rather, the competition for votes fosters the emergence of demagogues who scapegoat the  . . . minority and foment active ethno-nationalist movements demanding that the country’s wealth and identity be reclaimed for the ‘true owners of the nation.’” (Quotation from World on Fire)
• Can't put democracy in place in other countries (hear this particularly from a certain variety of critics of the Iraq War, particular can't put in place at the end of a gun barrel), so futile to try, even if it would be positive if it could be made to work.
• Democracy not inevitable. Too many gray areas, pretend democracies.  Losers strike back.  Anarchy reigns in some places (failed states).

Looking ahead: Practice essay questions. Midterm coming up.

What makes a good answer to an essay question?

Sample questions:

1. Is China or Saudi Arabia furthest from being a Western liberal democracy? Describe and explain your selection.
2. How do we know that Britain is a consolidated democracy?

Looking ahead: Be prepared with Manifesto of the Communist Party reading for next time.

Last updated October 19, 2011.

tanp@uncw.edu

Back to Dr. Tan's homepage: http://people.uncw.edu/tanp/