As we approach a new presidential election and evaluate new policies and strategies, none seem more important than foreign policy. It has been the defining focus of the Bush administration, for better or worse, and occupies a large portion of a voter’s mind when evaluating the electoral choices.
Key among the general notion of foreign policy has been the idea of spreading democracy, enhancing freedom and other such synonyms. Thus, it would be useful to analyze exactly what this means and its implications in a new administration.
After Sept. 11, American foreign policy underwent a radical shift. Coupled with fighting terror was a stated aim to spread democracy to regions that are under the grip of authoritarian regimes. In practice, this almost exclusively meant the Middle East. This aim was one of the justifications for the American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; as a result, the rhetoric of “spreading democracy” is none too popular among Western officials nowadays.
This is a shame, for it is not the goal of freeing individuals to choose their own government that is mistaken, but rather the means of accomplishing it. As seen in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan, violent regime overthrow is a dangerous, risky and mostly ineffective method of instituting democratic change. Tangible benefits are hard to find, whereas it is clear that these conflicts have provided a rallying call to the cause of jihad against the “Jews and Crusaders,” according to Osama bin Laden’s various audio tapes.
Admittedly, for various reasons it is extraordinarily difficult for democracy to sink its roots into this region. First among these is inexperience with the democratic process as a whole. Out of the Arab League’s 22 member nations, none are stable and fully-functioning democracies. Entrenched clan and family loyalties resist the breaking down of government into impersonal and separate processes. Controversially, a few eminent scholars on the Arab world recently wrote that a culture of violence exists that works in opposition to the peaceful acceptance of election results and appointments. Rory Stewart, a former British diplomat who was put in charge of the Iraqi province of Maysan for most of the year following the invasion, wrote that “[he] sought to appoint provincial councils, governors and police chiefs, but most of [his] constituents had no concept of democratic procedure. ‘If they make any trouble,’ explained one leading politician of a rival group, ‘we together will kill them.’ ‘If you put my cousin on the [provincial] council,’ explained another local bigwig, ‘I will slit his throat.’ ‘Seyyid Rory, you don’t understand,’ complained another. ‘How do you make a prisoner talk if you don’t torture him?'” Without insultingly generalizing, it is clear that the democratic transition will be extremely difficult at best.
With such seemingly impossible odds, some question if democratic nations should even make an effort to “spread democracy” to these countries, or if they should be left to their own devices. A few of these proponents go further and argue that over the past century, history shows that if a country is left alone, it will gradually move toward democracy on its own without major crises or messes. But this seems patently fallacious. Of those countries that did “smoothly” transition to democracy, almost all of them were encouraged to do so by the promise of some sort of benefits. In the case of Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was the promise of membership in the European Union. For other developing countries, the carrot was the backing and funding of the World Bank for development projects. Turkey is currently reforming its political system at the behest of the European Union with the promise of entry talks when it satisfactorily completes the reforms.
It works in the opposite direction as well. Without consistent and reasonable pressure, countries new to the democratic experiment can easily slip back into authoritarianism. Witness the recent fate of Russia. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of a democratic system, it seemed that the Russian people would finally be released from the interminably long grasp of tyranny. Yet Russian president Vladimir Putin has slowly but surely increased his power and control over the state, restricting “First Amendment” freedoms and allowing the state’s power to seep into virtually every corner of Russian life. High energy prices and consequently full state coffers have allowed him to ignore European and American criticism of his increasing authoritarianism. A state can clearly easily slide backward into despotism, then.
The most effective way of spreading democracy is to tempt nations with exclusive benefits and advantages for undertaking true democratic reform. It is important to retain a big-picture viewpoint, though. Any nation with such high-minded foreign policy ideals but no practical plan on how to implement them is doomed to failure. One need look no further than Iraq for a worst-case scenario. But it is equally important that failures such as these do not diminish the appetite for peacefully spreading democracy worldwide. Failure is often one of the best ways to learn.
John Jose is a sophomore finance and economics major. He can be reached at [email protected].
