How to encourage democracy in the world?

One of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was to overthrow the Saddam Hussein and turn the country into a pro-Western democracy. It didn't work quite as well as we were led to believe it would and it remains to be seen whether Iraq will one day become a stable, liberal democracy as a result of the US intervention.

Still, it would be nice if the authoritarian dictatorships in the world liberalised and became more democratic. Is there anything the West can do to help that to happen? I'd like to hear people's ideas and book suggestions, either for encouraging democracy generally, or thinking about specific countries.

I'm a south american. In my opinion, the first thing is clearness about the meaning of "democracy". As an example of a really bad and confused idea of democracy let's see NY Times today editorial:

"Concern over the popularity of Fidel Castro inspired the pro-democracy, pro-development policies of the Alliance for Progress during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, one of the happier periods of inter-American relations." I quote:

"Concern over the popularity of Fidel Castro inspired the pro-democracy, pro-development policies of the Alliance for Progress during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, one of the happier periods of inter-American relations."

As a latin american, I can't understand what NYT is talking about. Kennedy and Johnson gave money to terrorism and dictatorship in Latin America, not to democracy, in any respectable sense of the word.

So, as I was saying, the first thing is clearness about what is promote democracy. Kennedy and Johnson promoted torture and dictatorship, not democracy. Can USA promote democracy in the world? I don't know. In the present no, I guess, because USA isn't a democratic state. USA have mock-elections, not real elections to president, in the first place. How can an undemocratic state promote democracy in the world?

Link to the editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/opinion/07weds3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&am...

The US does want to develop democracy round the world. The issue is that it only wants democracies that suit them, hence some of the problems in Latin America. This seems to be stem from US paranoia - the enemy is within, the enemy is your neighbour - and naivete - everyone wants to be like us. It's a dangerous combination.

#2 - you can't dismiss the US as an undemocratic state. It is a democracy. All the people have the right to vote, the fact they don't vote is an issue affecting most democratic countries. The whole Florida debacle was simply a debacle, but crucially being a democracy no-one resorted to violence to rectify a perceived injustice.

The problem the West is going to have promoting democracy is that we no longer care about democracy. The cry in the streets is "I don't care about politics. All politicians are corrupt." Cynicism is the greatest threat to democracy.

But why worry about democracy? Virtually every country is free - look at the map. Democracy.

jargoneer - :-)

As a European it's interesting to see that Freedom House classifies Turkey as "partly free" and Russia as "not free". Also interesting that Iraq is classified as "not free".

As for the US I wouldn't call it a democracy, because it doesn't use paper ballots. How a country be a democracy if there's no way to know whether people's votes are counted or not?

I think virtually every US interevention during the post-war era (and even before) has shown nothing but utter contempt for democracy. Perhaps cesarschirmer would agree, considering the conditions found throughout his continent after US intereventions, see Nicaragua as a pretty uncontroversial case study. As an anarcho-syndicalist with libertarian convictions (I will not define these terms here) I feel that growth outside the system is always possible. I feel we should constantly be threatening governemnts with resistance. The only way to make governments more democratic is to abolish them, similarly with corporations. I would prefer not to get into the dialectical minutia of my own beliefs but would rather simply heir them here in a short "soundbyte" if you will excuse the term. FS Eire

In order to promote democracy (and democratic institutions/ elections), you first need to instill a vibrant democratic culture; one in which dissent and free press, peaceful opposition and tolerant education flourishes. Without this democratic culture, in which rights, and particularly, minority rights are respected and defended, democratic institutions (and elections) will always break down. Foisting these institutions on societies without these democratic cultures will also end badly, tyranny of the majority, corruption, oppression etc.

Property rights, the rule of law, equitable and blind justice and tolerant, accountable political institutions should, in a perfect world, follow.

There is also considerable academic literature suggesting a clear link between greater economic development (and economic freedom), property rights and democratic progress. That China is currently considering reinforcing property rights can only be a good thing, despite the lack of a strong, dissenting civil society movement.

The immigrants who came to this country and populated it, did not come from democratic traditions. they came from monarchies, dictatorships, feudal societies, etc. the democracy (imperfect as it is) was built by people with little or no democratic culture, but a great desire not to be bullied, or controlled or dictated to, especially about religion. The founding fathers didn't trust democracy that much, and created the bicameral legislature to reduce the power of the ordinary people. and remember the poll tax? and the lack of women's suffrage until the 1920's? In the constitution of athens, every citizen (men and not slaves) had a vote and could voice his opinions freely. with representative government, and the same number of senators in big states or little states, democracy is incredibly watered down-but it is probably only a bit better in the scandinavian countries. rather than interfering in the politics of other countries, i think we should concentrate on moving closer to democracy ourselves.

We began discussing democracy in the world, and now we are discussing democracy in the USA. There is very good ideas about the subject in On Nineteen Eighty-Four. I quote from the Introduction (p. 7):

"... although Nineteen Eighty-Four was created to dramatize the threat of the Soviet Union, it contains the germs of a powerful critique of U.S. practice. ... propaganda is in fact a more important means of social control in the United States than it is in a closed society like the former Soviet Union. In the United States, the elite does allow controversy, but only within limited bounds. The notion of the United States committing aggression, for instance, is "outside the pale of comprehensible thought." Freedom generally means "freedom of markets" in the American realm of Marketspeak, rather than political freedom. Just as individuais become "unpeople" in Ingsoc, entire populations disappear from the pages of mainstream American media in wartime; unlike American casualties, they have no political cost, and thus large-scale killing of them is permitted."

I`m wondering if we should be revisiting this topic in light of current developments.

In answer to the actual question, I`m not convinced about trying to impose democracy from the top down (though I`m not against it ), I would think the best way forward ideally would be with grass-roots projects to foster a genuinely participative democratic culture (though I`d concede that in practise these things can be very problematic) and, if appropriate, by supporting indigenous pro-democracy movements.

I notice in recent days, a number of governments have been pushing for aid to Afghanistan & Iraq, presumably in an effort to `win hearts and minds`, as an alternative to military might.

In principal, I`m all for that, but aid is a much more difficult area than people imagine - the old idea that `all aid is good aid` is pretty much exploded over here, with a number of agencies nursing damaged reputations - quite rightly in my view.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this ? It seems a shame such an important topic lost it`s way and became neglected.

Thanks to akiyama for posting the thread initially.

The problem, IMHO, is that democracy is just a structure ... there's nothing to prevent a country from democratically establishing laws that persecute minorities, women, other religions, etc. ... when most people talk about exporting democracy, they really mean exporting traditional American values (e.g., personal freedoms, equal rights, tolerance of others) ... I think you need to start with the latter to get the former, not the other way around ... but then you get into the paradox of how/if we should force people to be more tolerant.

Two things, neither address Nickhoonaloon's, desire for the how.

First, a book was published a couple of years ago but I can't remember its name or author Big help, huh). Its subject was an examination of America's interference in democracies that we didn't like and how we nipped these budding democracies in the bud in favor of strongmen who would insure American business would be able to rape the land and the indigenous populations. If the people whose land was stolen by United Fruit wanted it back, they were commies. That sort of thing. It ran from Hawaii in the 1890's through Mossadegh's Iran, at least. If anyone has the name of this book, please post it.

Now to the issue of democracy. Almigwin would desire a purer form of democracy for America. Read the Federalist on the nature of American Democracy and what the founders though of democracy. We have a Representative Republic in this country which is an entirely different beast than a democracy. It is that way by design. As Jargoneer says, our government requires participation. When people don't participate it's Katy, bar the door. I would be inclined to charge eligible adults a fine of $2,000 for not registering, and $5,000 for not voting unless they can show cause. This would get some participation.

Keep in mind when you create you democracy, Hitler was democratically elected, Hamas was democratically elected. All of the "pink tide" leaders are democratically elected. If we are going to create democracies we must learn to live with the results, whether they are to our liking or not.

As far as creating democracy in Iraq, no matter how much money is poured into it, without security nothing good can be done with it. Whether we were for this war or not a precipitous withdrawal will be a disaster for Iraq, a disaster for the balance of power in the middle east, and most of all a disaster for the US. To blindly follow the lead of the mob on pulling out would signal the end of American influence in the middle east, the only thing keeping the region together right now, and could lead to a large conflagration in the region. Is that what we want?

>As Jargoneer says, our government requires participation. When people don't participate it's Katy, bar the door. I would be inclined to charge eligible adults a fine of $2,000 for not registering, and $5,000 for not voting unless they can show cause. This would get some participation.

I'm not sure that this is entirely democratic, either, though.

Who says I want the world to be democratic?

As with many things it helps to first define one's terms. What do we mean by democracy? For me it not simply voting and the will of the majority--that can easily be a tyranny of the majority.

I think democracy means that those who govern do so with the consent of the governed, generally determined by vote of universal adult sufferage, but also a system where individual rights are guaranteed, and a majority may not take away those rights. The governed must have th opportunity to legitimately remove those in power, and I believe a functioning democracy will see power change hands and parties routinely. There must also be transparency and accountability so that the governed have the information needed to judge the performance of their officials, who must be beholden to the same laws and rules as all of citizens. Thus I think democracy includes real elections, basic individual rights, and rule of law. Elections is the easiest part of the equation, the other two often are more difficult. In the end it often comes demand to people of a country demanding these things--it is difficult if not impossible to impose from without. If people are demanding these things, however, outside pressure on rulers who would willingly use force to suppress those demands, can make a difference.

geneg: Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. More broadly, and slightly off-topic, representative democracy is a form of democracy, which I believe you are contrasting with direct democracy, another form of democracy. No democratic institutions in Iraq are going to have any legitimacy or credibility while the country is controlled and occupied by foreign armies; immediate withdrawal is the only way to keep the situation from getting even worse, which has been the case for quite some time now.

Thanks daschaich for the title and author. This is a good book for everyone to read about America in the world.

I`m very much in agreement with quartzite that elections are only (only ?) the tip of the iceberg of a genuinely democratric culture.

Going back to how we would export democracy - maybe human rights is a prerequisite ? I suspect that many of the nominally democratric countries in the world have just grafted a multi-party system on to a situation where the basics are not yet in place.

dascaich - you mention `direct democracy` - maybe this is one of those Anglo/US communication things, but I`ve heard that phrase bandied about by all manner of organisations, with all manner of different meanings - apologists for the old Soviet Block at one time used to claim those nations were `People`s Democracies` (!). I know you`re nothing like that in your views - what`s your version of `direct democracy` ?

Beyond simply voting, for the power to truly come from the people it has to rely on being financed by the people. Just look at Saudi Arabia which is perhaps the ultimate welfare state. The Saudi's dish out petro-welfare to the people in return for their subjugation. Wouldn't the picture look much different if a large enough segment of the population were paying taxes to the government instead? In that case, you'd have the government being at the mercy of the people instead of the other way around. Of course, that would be impossible in places like Saudi Arabia where the governments get their wealth by just pumping it out of the ground instead of from the productivity of its citizens. The power has to flow up from the bottom, not from the top.

Gee, never thought I'd be arguing for taxation and for privatizing oil. :P

Thank you, geneg, for pointing out that the U.S. is a Republic. The word "democracy" is non-existent in the Declaration of Independence as well as The Constitution.

As for encouraging democracy, there are other established democracies in the world, the US is not the sole *model of democracy*.

Perhaps a good start: as a global agenda, carried out as a cooperative, collaborative effort with other democratic nations?

Democracy can't just be *exported*...it has too many cultural, as well as political, prerequisites....both on the bringing side as well as on the accepting side.

Perhaps we need to narrow down this topic to reflect that?

Dear friends,

I think that the USA can help to spread democracy around the world simply refusing to support ANY dictatorship, and stopping funding coup d'etats, even when the outcome is not good for business.

Agreed. If we stuck true to our principles we wouldn't have been involved in half the messes around the world. Right now the chickens have come home to roost.

I don`t want to keep chipping in every ten seconds with my humble contributions, but I was just thinking about WinterTriangle`s points.

As I recall, the original question was how `we` export democracy. We`re tending to assume that `we` means `our governments`. I come from a background of grass-roots activism, where there`s a tradition of solidarity groups, human rights organisations etc. I wonder if they might ultimately be more use than governments.

My impression with the UK government during the fall of the Berlin Wall etc was that they were all for perestroika (opening things up for business), and `glasnost` (open government, free speech) etc was not necessarily their highest priority.

As for Africa, I think the government and those aid agencies who now depend on them for big bags of cash (Oxfam spring to mind) have their own agenda. It`s sad, but I think the trust of many decent people, who genuinely want to support progress in so-called Third World countries, is being abused.

Sorry if that`s a bit of a sombre note to strike.

nickhoonaloon: People in this country sometimes argue (or simply claim) that the United States is a "republic, not a democracy", contrasting government by elected representatives (which they call republicanism) with systems in which all (or at least major) decisions are made by direct vote of all citizens (which they call democracy).

This is a basic terminological confusion, which fails to recognize that republicanism is a form of democracy in which the people (demos) rule through elected representatives. To limit this confusion, it's better to specify that the US is a "representative democracy, not a direct democracy" instead of claiming it is a "republic, not a democracy", two frameworks that are not mutually exclusive.

So that's the way I was using those two terms: "representative democracy" to refer to systems in which voters elect representatives to deal with the business of government, and "direct democracy" to refer to systems in which all (or at least major) decisions are made by direct vote of all citizens.

Geneg: You might be thinking of Rogue State: A Guide To The World's Only Superpower by William Blum, wherein America's appalling interventions in other countries are described.

tropics, it was Overthrow as dschaich said, but thanks for thinking on it.

#23 Thanks daschaich, I`ve got it now. In the UK at there have been many forms of `radical democracy` put forward by various groups (to little avail), ranging from the `workerist` tendency (direct control of the workplace by the workforce) to others that sound suspiciously like no democracy at all. I`ve always secretly hoped that someone would come up with one that was actually convincing, but no luck as yet.

For anyone with an interest in such things, Socialisms : Old And New by Tony wright is an excellent book which makes the case for a socialism that avoids the pitfalls of a centralised state system (still advocated by the Communist Party of Britain, I understand), and social democracy (as practised by the current Labour Party). Wright is (was ?) a Labour MP. He is not one of the allegedly left-wing MPs who are forever staging conveniently unsuccesful rebellions, but can take an independent line when he feels it necessary.

Anyway, I`ve digressed a bit, perhaps we should get back to the matter in hand.

Keep in mind, most communist states ALSO called themselves 'democratic', even though almost all of them ended up being totalitarian.

As 'geneg' mentioned above, a good study of the Federalist Papers reveals just how worried the founding fathers were of a resurgence of absolutism.

IMHO, I think agree quite a few here: clean up or system at home, so we can set the best possible example in the 'flat world' we have now--
We're ALL on 'Bay Watch' now, brothers and sisters, and if it looks good, they just might try it.

Well, no real disagreement from me, except I don`t think people in other countries are looking to the west to set an example, or that they`ll necessarily follow where the west leads.

My thought is that each society needs to evolve it`s own mechanisms for ensuring accountability and representation. Importing overseas models will only mean they have very shallow roots in local communities.

I think it would be much more appropriate to go to a model of community-based development. Unfortunately, a number of well-known aid agencies, some of whom paid lip-service to such concepts, have recently put their names to a report conceding that in practise their efforts have been rather less than succesful. Recent complaints in Sudan (I think it was Sudan) that delayed food aid had arrived just as the harvest season began (thereby causing hardship by depressing local markets) is a case in point.

Still, it is good that the aid agencies concerned - normally noted for their Stalinist air-brushing of inconvenient facts - have embarked on a degree of openness, though I wonder whether organisations that in many cases are neither democratic or independent are ever going to be much help.

>28 nickhoonaloon:

Conceded. And more power to them! The last thing we want is a homogeneous culture.

But 'Bay Watch' WAS the most popular television program in the world for a considerable time (awful thought) because you could SEE exactly what you were missing if you didn't live in La La Land. This in NOT the best way to encourage emulation of your country, but people DO have to wonder how we got to this point. IMHO, I think luck had a lot to do with it, but I think our institutions do, too.

Perhaps a better definition for America is : a republic that respects democratic institutions. Or at least used to.

Well, leavingly aside the liberating value of Baywatch, the point is that societies evolve a form of democracy that suits their particular circumstances, or at least that`s what I`d like to see.

For instance, the US and UK are both western capitalist democracies, but both differ in key areas. For instance, as I understand it our judiciary is independent of the political process to a greater degree than yours. I hope it always will remain that way, but equally, it`s perfectly valid for your society to approach things in a different way.

Similarly, at one time, politicians here were largely advised by independent civil servants who remained in office whoever was in power, though directly accountable to politicians. My understanding is that in the US, each administration brings in it`s own people to support and advise it. (Purely as an interesting aside, in the UK now we now have the worst of both worlds where the Civil Service has been dismembered and sidelined in favour of private sector advisers, accountable to the electorate in no way whatsoever).

The important thing is really, that each society finds it`s own way of ensuring the twin essentials of accountability and representation. Personally, I agree with Winston churchill that democracy is "The worst system in the world. Apart from all the others."

nickhoonaloon: Sometimes I think that oft quoted remark by Mr. Churchill gives people permission to not be about creating some newer methods and ideas. I certainly don't disagree with the great Mr. Churchill, or you, but I certainly wish we could get on with finding some improvements for our systems, on both sides of the pond.

Nick, you misunderstand our advisory system over here. Yes, the President brings in his own advisers, with the authorization of some of them by the Senate, but the vast majority of "Advisers" are not associated with the government in any way, they are the lobbyists, they are employed by groups with a particular "interest" mostly getting money or preventing regulation for their clients. Some, not many, claim to be on the side of consumers, citizens, taxpayers, or the little guy. By the nature of their work and the kinds of favors they can grant targeted congressmen and administration officials, they walk the edge of bribery. They provide two things: expertise in their point of view on a subject, and access to lots of money in donations, etc. Jack Abramoff is a classic example, he bought the attention to particular matters from Tom DeLay or at least his staff.

It seems that as Republicans are in power, the truly seamy side of this whole business flourishes. When the Democrats are in power everyone continues what they are doing, but less noticeably.

This system is why American governance is one of selling our American birthright to the highest bidder.

Somebody once famously said, "Love makes the world go 'round." they were wrong. Our American world is driven by money and power, love or compassion is seen as a weakness. I am afraid our governance and politics will only become more cynical and corrupt as time goes by. I grew up in a country I could be proud of, I don't recognize the country I live in now. It is repressive in areas that it doesn't have any business being involved in at all, and cares only about money.

A course in the minor prophets for every American would be a great thing. People here belive they are the chosen of God and God guides our actions as a nation. They should read the minor prophets and see why God found it necessary to punish Israel.

From the least to the greatest our idol is money. There are many among us who believe a man's worth is measured by how much money he has, even if and most especially if he never had to lift a finger to earn a penny of it.

We have our own peerage over here, it's just never been institutionalized as yours has.

I once read an article in The Atlantic Monthly extolling the benefits of nepotism and passing certain jobs down through families. Sound familiar?

Oh, I could go on in this vein for a while, but it just depresses me. The bottom line is a good portion of the governance of our country is sold to the highest bidder in an orgy of greed, power, and money.

I have been following the Political Conservatives group for a while now hoping to see some sign or willingness to conserve power "by the people, for the people, and of the people" but because of some very basic mistakes made in their philosophy early on, they run into contradictions that they don't know how to handle. Fortunately, only one or two of their numbers really fall for the party line, the rest are very thoughtful, but just can't see their way past some of the fundamental conflicts in their conservatism. Liberals over here don't fare any better in my estimation. They range from seeing themselves as a sort of benign Robin Hood, an attitude most Americans subscribe to more or less, to being real control freaks, knowing what's best for everyone and with a plan for taking control, the old Leninist model of governing.

I see tremendous room for a third party, something dubbed the Liberaltarian party: heavy on personal freedom, a light but effective hand on the market, and a desire to govern rather than sink into the mire of cronyism and power.

Ah, well, one can only hope.

A very eloquent (and poignant) response.

I try to avoid commenting too much on the US because, after all, it`s a place I`ve never even visited.

One thing I do find very disturbing is that, as the UK moved to a US-style economy (service-orientated as distinct from manufacturing-based), we also acquired US-style social problems (large numbers of unskilled young men unemployed and unoccupied all day long).

I can well understand how people feel antagonised/intimidated at times, but I also think a) as a nation we no longer provide jobs for unskilled labour to any great extent, (any employer talking about doing so can expect local authorities to fall over themselves trying to attract them into the area - understandably enough) b) the level of skills required in a modern economy is way beyond the reach of many of today`s disaffected youngsters.

Also, and this is my major point, it is astonishing how attractive US-style gangster culture is to youth (even to `decent kids`). Now I myself listened to some absolute drivel as a youngster ( I was young in the punk era), and certainly I derived mischeivous glee from shocking people - but I think this is a different type of thing, given the way things are going vis a vis gun crime etc.

I wondered what the American take is on all this - do you see the gangster thing as just irrelevant youth rebellion, or is it in fact reflecting mainstream US values, albeit in a distorted fashion ("love or compassion is seen as weakness" says geneg "our idol is money").

I think there`s a lot we could usefully discuss there, but for now I`ll just pose the question and see what others have to say.

'Gangsterism' is the US has a number of factors; one one them, believe it or not, is economic. The section on 'Why crack dealers live with their mothers' in Freakonomics is a great introduction into how this works at ground level; but I've lived on the poor side in a lot of different places and have seen other facets of it also. The gist: There is a vast undocumented economy in the US, including both legal and illegal trade, and often this is the only opportunity young people have to get ahead.

A lot of 'gangsterism', unfortunately, has to do with race. In urban areas and in places where the racial mix is changing rapidly (i.e. the rural West), gangs are a way for young people to find a place.

The 'rebellious youth' factor is relatively minor, here. There are simply too many different ways to rebel without taking a plunge into the extremely violent environment of the gangs, and most kids that can avoid it, do so. There are plenty of other idiotic ways to waste your youth in the US, after all.

The 'collapse' of organized crime (true only in a relative sense) left a vacuum in that economic sector, and at least in the urban areas the more racially polarized gangs have filled it, and continue to exert monopoly control over it. This has been true at least since the early 80's, when the 'war on drugs' really got going.

That's not to say the most, or even a majority, of urban crime is perpetrated by gang members; just like the Mafia of earlier years, the gangs are adept at avoiding attention. It's the rejects, wannabes, and imitators that make most of the mess.

And this has led to yet another confusion of cause-and-effect at the conservative end of the political spectrum, just as dumb now as it was in 18th century England: the minorities, immigrants, and poor are inherently criminal.

Wrong. The minorities, poor, and immigrants turn to crime because that is the only economic avenue left to them after 'trickle-down'. I suspect that the causes at least are similar in other countries, even if the results are different.

To get back to the initial question,

"Still, it would be nice if the authoritarian dictatorships in the world liberalised and became more democratic. Is there anything the West can do to help that to happen? I'd like to hear people's ideas and book suggestions, either for encouraging democracy generally, or thinking about specific countries."

Well, let's look at an even more problematic issue: resolving civil war in a developing nation. I would point, for one modern example, to the success of Blair in Sierra Leone. Unfortunately, it could be argued that this successful peacekeeping mission emboldened Blair (and, therefore, aided to his pro-Anglo-American alliance--come hell or high water--philosophy in both the justifiable, but botched intervention into Afghanistan and the utterly reprehensible Iraq war). However, if we are able to put that baggage aside, I think it is eminently clear that the Sierra Leone mission was practical, successful and, even more shockingly, responsible (a term which is nearly always absent when one discusses a developed nation's relations with a former colony). Of course, resolving a civil war is different than promoting change in a dictatorial, but entirely stable, nation. But what the Sierra Leone mission proves is that, if there is a will between all parties involved to agree on a number of specific issues, dramatic changes can occur within the nation in question.

Dictators, Juntas and democratically elected leaders who pass authoritarian legislation (think Putin and Chavez) have far less incentive to negotiate on any issue: they have already established themselves and marginalized the opposition. But they do want to promote trade, and are, in most cases, willing to compromise on a number of issues so long as they are able to do so in a way which does not compromise their grasp on power. These compromises, however insignificant they may seem, are probably the best that other democratic nations can accomplish. The fundamental change, as others have mentioned, will have to take place from within (either through a benevolent coup from the top or, as in most cases, the establishment of a social movement, be it peaceful or revolutionary). We can try to help these movements by telling the dicators/juntas/etc that we are willing to take a temporary hit and cease trading with (and therefore funding) them, but that's about all we can do without putting troops on the ground...

Okay, okay, back to the main grind....

Working with or supporting dictators leaves a bad taste in the mouth of progressive Americans; our country has done entirely too much of it already this century; worse, we have often justified our support by projecting 'democratic' virtues that often did not exist onto these regimes.

That said, I thing idealist crusades are certainly worse. So pragmatic foreign policy is still the best choice.

Right now, the US diplomatic corps is simply too small, too underfunded, has too little prestige, and is too parochial to learn all it needs to know to do its job. The Peace Corps is no better; most ex-Peace Corps people I've talked say that there was no way they could accomplish anything in the time they were allowed (2-4 years). Most of the really ambitious ones have found ways to return to their host countries by other means.

But at least dictators and juntas are (relatively) stable; and they often have fewer philosophical axes to grind and are more likely to compromise on pragmatic issues.

Encouraging a dictator to be more 'benevolent' is quite likely to be considered both hypocritical and patronizing (especially after Iraq); if anything props up personalities like Chavez and Putin, it's ego.

And isolation plays right into their hands, at least politically.

I really think 'corruption' (to put it in Communist terms) is the best strategy; use trade and communications to continue to demonstrate how much more viable a democratically organized society is.

And to 'corrupt' a society, you must have contact with it; and to be most effective you must KNOW it, be able to come up with ways of discovering civil societies within these different cultures. 'Discovering' rather than 'introducing' is an important point here; historically, all human societies have been more or less egalitarian at some time in their past, and it is only a matter of aligning the economic and social factors in that society so as to move in that direction.

So what WE need to do, as citizens of the 'democratic' West, is vastly expand our knowledge of these societies and support those parts of our governments (the State Dept, Foreign Service, etc.) that are actively pursuing these goals.

Perhaps our discussion should be about why we know so little about these countries in the first place.

"Working with or supporting dictators leaves a bad taste in the mouth of progressive Americans; our country has done entirely too much of it already this century; worse, we have often justified our support by projecting 'democratic' virtues that often did not exist onto these regimes." -wyrdchao

Of course there are problems regarding any relationship with a dictatorial society, but, as dictatorial societies will always exist in some part of the world (for any idealist who may wish to jump in and argue this point with me, let's just try to settle with "dictatorial societies will always exist in our lifetime"), we have four major options: overthrow a dictatorial nation's leadership; meddle in the government's internal affairs; engage them frankly, emphasizing dialog and trade in our relations; or ignore them entirely. In my last post, I was attempting to describe the third position, in which trade can be used as an incentive for better behavior or restricted when the government is acting without reason. That's about as frank and pragmatic as it can get, for, if you are to embrace the idea that trade should be sustained at all times to "corrupt" a society, well, then you are effectively stating that we should be promoting trade with the disgustingly corrupt junta in Burma and, for that matter, the dictatorship in North Korea. Both governments survive for the sole reason that the Chinese government has no qualms following an "anything goes" trade policy with them. Do you believe that we should also agree to prop up the most disgusting of the juntas and dictatorships, or do you believe that there is a point at which we should withdraw all forms of economic support for the very worst governments?

"Encouraging a dictator to be more 'benevolent' is quite likely to be considered both hypocritical and patronizing (especially after Iraq)" -wyrdchao

Is it really? I don't really see how, on a case by case scenario, it is hypocritical, nor do I believe that it is it patronizing if we are completely frank: "we do want to trade with your nation, but we need to see demonstrable change in this particular area if we are going to be able to convince the people of our nation to support our trade policy."

"So what WE need to do, as citizens of the 'democratic' West, is vastly expand our knowledge of these societies and support those parts of our governments (the State Dept, Foreign Service, etc.) that are actively pursuing these goals." -wyrdchao

You are certainly right to suggest that we citizens need to expand our knowledge of other societies, but that leads us to a far more complicated question: how do we convince the apathetic majority of America that it really is worth spending a few hours of their week learning about the rest of the world? If anyone has a good answer to this question, please let us know it!

In your various quotes, I was attempting to present some idea of what kinds of arguments these dictators will use to counter any overt attempt to influence the societies they lead. 'Hypocritical', 'corrupt' and 'patronizing' is exactly what they will call us if we don't learn how to relate to these people better than we have historically.

And educating ourselves about the situation on the ground is exactly how we avoid engaging in the morally questionable trade policies that countries like China currently employs.

As to how we combat apathy? You got me there. First you have to teach kids to find Vietnam or Burkina Faso or Timor on a map, first. That's how far we are away from a solution; it's not cool to have compassion for people in other countries, much less forsake our wealth and comfort for their sake. We have to convince Americans that it is in their own best interest that these 'foreigners' achieve civil societies on their own terms. That combination of empathy and pragmatism is rare, and always has been.

I agree entirely. We have a hell of a mountain to climb...

John Dean has this idea about Authoritarians, it probably is the same for all totalitarians as well, that there are three kinds of people in the US and by extension, in the world: those who are not authoritarian at all, authoritarians who follow authoritarian leaders, unquestioningly doing what they are told, like Fox Noise watchers and Limbaugh listeners, and authoritarian leaders, those whom the followers follow, like Limbaugh, Cheney, Pearl, Gingrich, Crystol, Podhoretz, etc. ad infinitum.

The authoritarians, both types, hate the non-authoritarians. Being self-centered control freaks, it drives them around the bend that their authoritarianism is pretty much ignored by just the people who need it most. They must be very frustrated, thus the level of hatred and vitriol they spew. Not being an authoritarian means you are unpatriotic, and dangerous.

The authoritarian followers, as stated above follow.

The authoritarian leaders are a whole different kettle of fish. They have an agenda, a program and they do whatever they thinks advances their agenda. If ignoring the truth advances it, then ignorance is bliss. If they must lie, they will be liars, Why did the Republicans pursue Clinton so relentlessly about a minor sex scandal, because his agenda was not the agenda of the authoritarians, so, we'll destroy him and his presidency. This is the same reason they don't care what BushCo does, he is pursuing their agenda. Authoritarian leaders are not bound by such weak concepts as honor, justice, truth, they are bound hand and foot to their agenda and will destroy anyone and anything to see it implemented. They will destroy the Republican party if they must, but unless the country is working on the authoritarian agenda they will plunge it into chaos if possible. See the last six years of the Clinton presidency. These are nasty, nasty people.

Another thing about Authoritarian leaders, they are above the law, they are morally superior and they do not need to follow any codes of ethics or conduct in the pursuit of God's work, the establishment of an authoritarian government in America. Duke Cunningham and Larry Craig are perfect examples. Cunningham did not see his actions as corrupt. He was taking what was his due for advancing the authoritarian agenda. Larry Craig does not see the irony between his vision of Bill Clinton as a "very bad boy" and his own predicament because he works for the authoritarian agenda and being a leader is not bound by authoritarian strictures on behavior.

The ultimate authority figure is God and these folks, if they believe in God, see themselves as God, Jr. Most, on the other hand, don't believe in God. They grab power for the sake of control and will engage in whatever activities will give them more power, legal or illegal, moral, or immoral, remember, it's not illegal if the (authoritarian) president does it.

This is not John Dean's wacky idea either. this is a result of psychological studies of authoritarian personalities. He lays all this out in his book Conservatives without Conscience along with charts and tests used to measure the level of authoritarianism in individuals. Very interesting, and potentially very useful politically.

Finally, not all conservatives are authoritarians, but all authoritarians are conservatives.

His argument is compelling, until we reach the end: "not all conservatives are authoritarians, but all authoritarians are conservatives."

All authoritarians are to some degree conservative. But they can and often do embrace specific progressive goals which are unquestionably revolutionary. For example, Soviet Russia embraced women in the work force far, far earlier than the US did, and Ataturk's Turkey gave women the right to vote over three decades before France did.

>42 geneg:
Another point that you might have missed is that many authoritarians don't start that way, don't think they are evil, but are corrupted by their attempts to attain and keep power. And even among the most hardened totalitarian there is a core of idealism, a reason he or she reached for that power.

Regardless of the 'climate' of authoritarianism as it is described above, and regardless of how it manifests itself in the US, we must try to identify which leaders we can feel comfortable supporting; finding out what principles such leaders hold will go a long way towards discovering ways to work with them.

>44 wyrdchao:,

That point does make Dean's argument more interesting (I have yet to read his book), but, at the same time, there are a number of authoritarians who most certainly were openly authoritarian even when they floundered in relative obscurity: on the right, there is of course Hitler, Mussolini and Franco; on the left, we have Lenin (who was explicitly authoritarian vis a vi his more moderate Bolshevik allies), Trotsky (even when he was still a member of the far more moderate Mensheviks) and, of course, Pol Pot...

In the end, I'm going to have to read the book! When I do get around to it (and it could be a while), I'm sure I'll respond here or create a new thread.

If we`re talking about encouraging democracy in the world, we really neeed to be talking about events in Burma over the last week or so.

I`ve had a quick skim around the net, here`s a couple of sites that may be useful -

www.burmacampaign.org.uk/

www.freeburma.org.

`Scuse hasty note !

Best,

Nick

>46 nickhoonaloon: Nick, I'm still catching up on the news from last week but.... One of the lessons the US can take out of this is:

Don't expect to keep the 'moral high ground' if your economic interests in the country (oil) are directly financing a brutal and corrupt regime.

(We really, really, REALLY should have learned this one by now..*groan*.)

I'm completely sick over what they've done to the monks.

#48 And quite right too. Over here, we`ve heard reports of 30 or so dead.

I`m not the best at doing links - I`ll try the second one again.

www.freeburma.org

At least four thousand monks are already on their way to prison*.

This is a contemptible situation: if, at this point, the remaining 400,000 monks acquiesce to the junta's authority, the military will surely remain in power for another generation; conversely, if the monks find a way to return to the streets en force, only the religiosity of the leading members of junta (who are reputed to be very, very serious followers of astrology; The Economist has written a handful of pieces on this topic over the years, but the articles are only available to subscribers) will prevent mass bloodshed.

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7022437.stm