Democracy, a catch-22

In a recent article in the Washington Post Robert Kagan exposed a catch-22, a paradox, involving Democracy, especially when it comes to nations that have never practiced it before.

First I would like to say that I found it somewhat ironic that Kagan was writing about this, a neoconservative who thought that democracy should and could be imposed on undemocratic nations by external fiat, mainly that of the United States. As a neoconservative he believed that the U.S. should use its extensive powers to influence those parts of the world that remained undemocratic. He, like the present administration, believed that the U.S. should use strong-arm tactics on those nations that are reluctant to change. This doctrine found its first test with the American occupation of Iraq. However, the disastrous consequence of the Iraqi war has since tempered his enthusiasm for this idealistic doctrine.

I‘ve always been amazed how supposedly knowledgeable people have so little understanding of Democracy, in what is essential for its function and sustainability. These people should have known that you can’t exported Democracy and impose it on people who have never practiced it before. They should known that Democracy is a customized, cultural activity that has taken a long time and many generations to develop in those societies that practice it. In democratic societies Democracy is in the blood, a way of life and part of our DNA. So I think it should have been obvious to people like Kagan and other neoconservatives who were all gungho for establishing Democracy in Iraq that insinuating it on an people from above would be a tremendous undertaking if not impossible. Nevertheless, knowledgeable people, including one professor of Democracy that went to Iraq, believed the U.S. could smoothly establish Democracy there and the people would accept it willingly.

Iraq has been a learning experience for Kagan and his fellow necons about Democracy. Sadly it took a war in Iraq for people like him to understand what Democracy really entails. Consequently, intellectuals, scholars and politicians are now beginning to realize that Democracy is contingent on many things for it to function well and be successful. Iraq has been a test case and field experiment for Democracy, where things have been exposed about it that wouldn't necessarily show up in the classroom. The American professor who was so anxious to spearhead its introduction in Iraq soon grew weary about its prospects there. A year into the war he realized that due to the shortcomings and incompetence of the war’s organizers Iraq instead was becoming extremely insecure. That is when the professor realized that security and order are extremely fundamental to Democracy. Nothing much else is possible without it. Under these circumstances, he realized, Democracy is impossible. I wonder why this wasn't understood or learned before hand, in class, before getting into this misadventure in Iraq. That’s probably because it wasn't clearly understood that Democracy is a very esoteric enterprise and a lot of patience is needed with people who have never done it before.

One thing The U.S. could have done to achieve security in Iraq for the purpose of establishing Democracy was to secure all those institutions that made Iraqis feel secure prior to the war, such as government institutions, medical and educational institutions and cultural museums. The security of those vital institutions would have gone a long way to maintain order and civility. Instead the U.S. allowed those institutions to be ransacked and looted due to incompetence and the lack of resources to secure them. (I think the U.S. was ill prepared in establishing Democracy because that was not the original intention. The original intention for war was to find weapons of mass destruction but when they didn't materialized they changed the mission to establishing Democracy, in order to save face.)

One thing Kagan alluded to in his article is that Democracy is contingent on a number of things. One important aspect is the rule of law. Basically the rule of law is a set of principles that are intended to be a "safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule”. Thus, the rule of law must also include secular and pluralist functions, two contingencies that. by the way, are greatly lacking in Iraq. Elections and the right to vote are also essential components. which did take place in Iraq. But the lack of the rule of law in Iraq makes election and voting results essentially non-starts because the rule of law - the courts, the division of powers, is not there as a mechanism to uphold the results of the election and the will of the people who voted in them.

Democracy is contingent on many things. And that is what gives it this aura of a catch-22, because if certain things in combination, like the rule of law and elections, don't happen simultaneously there is little or no chance for Democracy taking hold. But how does the combination of contingencies Democracy require, such as a stable environment, secularism, free speech, freedom of choice, elections, human rights, happen in a society that has never acknowledged them before?

Globalism

Globalism is about the world coming together multiculturally. It is also about the world's civilization becoming interconnected, woven together and relying on each other for survival and continuance. Globalism over the years has removed barriers between civilizations and generated more tolerance among them.

One good thing Globalism brought about last week was the meeting between King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, the first such meeting between the main leader of Islam and the main leader of Christianity. International world events brought them together. Such a meeting would have been unthinkable, a non-started or unnecessary post 9/11.

Globalism has shrunken the world. In the past, when the world was a bigger place, world leaders could ignore each other and go about their business without having to address each other or explain themselves to the rest of world. But things have change since Globalism has made the world a more interdependent place. Leaders now feel pressured that they have to explain and defend their policies to the rest of the world. They feel this pressure because their action can be so destabilizing for the rest of world. The integration of the world politically and economically has force them to change and rethink their positions for the better. This is an incremental change but nonetheless a positive one.

What Globalism has done by shrinking the world and making it more interdependent and interconnected is made world leaders and their nations more accountable. Things in the world have become so interwoven that one nations actions can have great consequences for others. Thus nations around the world have become more conscious and concerned about doing the right thing by each other.

Globalism has contained and defused a lot of abusive power in the world from becoming more dangerous. For example, Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has had to respond to world criticism and anger about invoking marshal law, which he didn't feel necessary to do eight years ago when he first took power by force. This time he has been stopped in his tracks and has had more opposition, internally and externally. This time Musharraf felt pressure and obliged, by Globalism's forces, to extend an olive branch to defuse tension and world anxiety as King Abdullah felt he had to last week at the Vatican.