Condi's crystal clear

[Skye]

There's a new journal that follows on from The National Interest called The American Interest. The first issue has an essay by Condoleezza Rice, which argues that the US should continue to try to 'democratise' other countries despite the difficulties. Here's an excerpt from The Australian.

 

I REJECT the notion that because democracy is hard and because there are risks associated with democratisation that you avoid trying. The question I would ask sceptical people is: "OK, then, what is your answer? Is it continued authoritarianism?" Well, that hasn't got us very far, particularly in the Middle East, where all it's done is breed opposition outside of legitimate channels, so that you get extremism instead. It clearly isn't the case that the US ought to argue that: "Well, those people just aren't ready for democracy." Is that the answer to "there might be risks associated with democracy"?

 

And when it comes to the question of whether you might, in fact, get extremists elected, which is another way that this is sometimes put, I think you have to ask yourself if you are better off in a situation in which extremists, Islamists and others, get to hide behind their masks and operate on the fringes of the political system, or would you rather have an open political system in which people have to actually contest for the will of the people?

 

And who does best in a contest for the will of the people? To a certain extent, you have to trust these values, and you have to believe that while democracy is very hard – it is certainly not an easy system to bring into being – I would have two answers: First, it's certainly better than anything else that we can cling to; and secondly, what's the alternative?

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it creates a false dichotomy, where you either embrace the neo-conservative democratisation strategy, or you sit back and do nothing. There's obviously a debate within the conservative US politics between isolationists and democratisers. But conservatives will need to look outside their own foreign policy writings if they aren't going to make more mistakes. At least not be so defensive of the problems in the way their strategy has been implemented. Most importantly, they need to remember that the ideal of democracy is that it is beholden to the people, but ham-fisted democratisation makes these governments appear more beholden to the US.

 

What's also curious is the similaries of the argument that providing representation for opposition groups prevents them becoming extremists to the argument that legalising illicit drugs prevents the drug users becoming criminals. I can see that argument being debated forever with no conclusion, just like with drugs.

[Pangloss]

Well first of all, let's be clear about something: You can talk about wanting other countries to achieve freedom and democracy without meaning that those countries need to be conquered militarily. And anybody who knows Rice's history should know that she's a moderating force (like Colin Powell), not a war hawk. Reading between the lines is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's still reading between the lines.

 

That aside, I have no problem with the issue you're raising in general, and I think you make some interesting points. This is something that I raised in 2003 as a political specter that would back to haunt us if we went into Iraq without the general consensus of the international community.

[Skye]

You can talk about wanting other countries to achieve freedom and democracy without meaning that those countries need to be conquered militarily.

That's true.

 

What I meant is that you can promote ideals like secular government, liberalism, representation of minorities, anti-corruption, or whatever, without necessarily pursuing democratisation. It's not a simple choice between sitting back and watching things deteriorate and promoting a form of government.

[Pangloss]

That's your belief, and you're entitled to it. I recognize a lot of truth in what you're saying myself.

 

The position of the American government, however, is that democritisation is necessary. Put another way, liberal (freedom-oriented) governance is not possible without democracy.

[Mokele]

My main problem is, well, who are we to say that other countries *must* be democratic, or that we should force it upon them. They should be offered the option and help if they want it, sure, but to try to democratize everywhere smacks, to me, of claiming that our beliefs about government are the only correct ones, and that everyone should fall in line, regardless of their beliefs about government.

 

Purely hypothetically, what if some country was run under Plato's (?) ideal of philosopher-kings, and it was actually working, with the people happy and free? Should we still try to democratize them?

 

I'm all for freedom and giving it a helping hand, whether it appears in the form of a democracy or not, but I feel it's something we should *help*, not instigate or initiate.

 

Mokele

[ku]

The thing about freedom is that it doesn't alway lead to happiness. Just to give an example, say forcing people to live a certain way gives then happiness of 5 utils. And then you give them freedom and then, because they are lost and have no clue what to do, their happiness decreases to, say, 4.5 utils.

 

But still, in my opinion, I believe freedom is more important than happiness. For example, a society could emerge in which all humans, from infancy, were plonked in front of TV screen and were fed through tubes. For their whole lives the individuals would watch highly entertaining TV shows and movies and achieve happiness quite high, say 6.6 utils stable over 50 years before they die. But they don't have freedom. This is a little like The Matrix, in fact.

[Pangloss]

Well put.