Democratization or Human Rights? Both Actually
Welcome back, Anne-Marie. I'll take up your challenge on whether the United States should be pushing democracy or human rights. For my money, it's the wrong question to ask. It presumes that one necessarily comes at the expense of the other. They don't. Democracies are more apt to respect human rights, and countries that countries that respect human rights are more likely to embrace democratic norms.
A better question is how we can best promote democratization and human rights. In our political debates we seem to have a knee-jerk sympathy for coercive measures, whether it is the use of military force (a la Iraq) or economic sanctions (many liberal Democrats). The Iraq experience is hardly an advertisment for spreading democracy at the point of a gun. And globalization makes economic sanctions less and less attractive by the day--if countries can't get the goods and capital they want from us they can get them elsewhere.
A better strategy may be to use inducements, i.e., honey rather than vinegar. The EU experience is powerful testament to how the opportunity to get economic benefits can encourage countries to embrace democratic norms and human rights. The Millennium Challenge Account represents something similar (albeit it on a far smaller scale and without the requisite financial support). Countries with good governance records get more access to foreign aid.
A better strategy may be to use inducements, i.e., honey rather than vinegar. The EU experience is powerful testament to how the opportunity to get economic benefits can encourage countries to embrace democratic norms and human rights. The Millennium Challenge Account represents something similar (albeit it on a far smaller scale and without the requisite financial support). Countries with good governance records get more access to foreign aid.
A related question worth asking is what kind of democracy we want to promote. Democracy should not be equated with holding elections. Fareed Zakaria wrote about the dangers of illiberal democracy in a Foreign Affairs article that became the book, The Future of Freedom. Constitutional democracy--which limits the power of both government and the majority--should be our goal.
Two final points. First, it doesn't strike me that Bruce's point is that the pursuit of democratization is counter-productive but rather that it is a fallacy to believe that democracy is--in the short-run at least--a panacea in the battle against Al Qaeda and those it has inspired. (By the way, Greg Gause made the same case at greater length recently in the pages of Foreign Affairs.) In the long run, though, I'd still rather live in a world of democracies, even if it complicates our diplomacy.
Second, concentrating U.S. resources on economic development is unlikely to help us in many places where we would like to make a difference on the terrorism front. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and more than a few other oil-producing countries don't need us as much as we might think, and they need us less and less as oil prices go up.
Two final points. First, it doesn't strike me that Bruce's point is that the pursuit of democratization is counter-productive but rather that it is a fallacy to believe that democracy is--in the short-run at least--a panacea in the battle against Al Qaeda and those it has inspired. (By the way, Greg Gause made the same case at greater length recently in the pages of Foreign Affairs.) In the long run, though, I'd still rather live in a world of democracies, even if it complicates our diplomacy.
Second, concentrating U.S. resources on economic development is unlikely to help us in many places where we would like to make a difference on the terrorism front. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and more than a few other oil-producing countries don't need us as much as we might think, and they need us less and less as oil prices go up.
Advertisement
Comments (13)
WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country.
The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq, as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.
But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks.
Isn't that special. Begun to challenge the democracy ju ju have they?
They get paid for this???
The Regime's intel is no better than it was 3 years ago..
The only difference is more people on the inside are leaking in a timely fashion.
October 10, 2005 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Among the more obvious weaknesses:
1. Democratic governments -- too few in number, too recent and too unevenly dispersed around the world
2. Human rights likewise
3. Both measures are impossibly vague.
4. Our own record on human rights and democratic governance
5. The War on Iraq
Here we are busily retooling the old nostrums still spinoing policies out of platitudes, and without the slightest pause for critical reflection continue to swallow our own BS becaue it makes us feel smugly superior
Have we learned nothing? Hasn't anyone read Assasins Gate or today's newspaper?
October 10, 2005 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The EU experience is powerful testament to how the opportunity to get economic benefits can encourage countries to embrace democratic norms and human rights."
This is only true when it comes to enlargement. But when it comes to European foreign policy, it is wrong to assume that Europe has the promotion of democracy and/or human rights as its top priority.A recent report of the Center for European Security Studies concludes:
"the EU’s performance as a foreign policy actor aiming at the promotion of democracy is very mixed"
http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1242
Another report on EU's democracy assistance is available on the website of NIMD: IMD study into EIDHR instruments.
www.nimd.org
When it comes to North Africa, human rights activists complain that EU and EU's member states do in fact stabilize the autocrats. Even if the official documents on European neighborhood policy mention democracy and human rights as goals, there is no conditionality and no monitoring. In fact, EU's foreign policy is still guided by classical realism - stability is the major goal. Autocrats are free to can crack down on dissidents, they have nothing to fear from EU. Dissidents have nothing to expect from EU.
That's the sad truth. There is no "European way" to promote democracy and human rights (outside of enlargement, for sure). Even worse, Europe is still acting in the old framework of status-quo-policy. It's time for the American liberals to realize that Europe presents no alternative to American foreign policy.
October 10, 2005 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Democracies are more apt to respect human rights, and countries that countries that respect human rights are more likely to embrace democratic norms."
"A better question is how we can best promote democratization and human rights."
"A related question worth asking is what kind of democracy we want to promote."
i thought for a second that you were going to make my point for me but i guess not... i think it's extremely difficult to promote democracy in any form when the country that is promoting it doesn't practice it... the u.s. has never been a true democracy in the first place although we insist on perpetuting the myth that it is... secondly, whatever "democracy" we have internally has and is being seriously eroded and don't think for a second that the nations of the world don't see it... the rest of the world desperately WANTS to see us at the "shining city on the hill" and, like most of our own citizens, would rather engage in denial than accept the harsh reality... but the harsh reality is beginning to sink in and, as it does, it's becoming increasingly difficult to promote EITHER human rights or democracy as a nation that doesn't "walk its talk..."
October 10, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where does institution building go in this dichotomy? The United States is not a democracy in the classical sense but a democratic republic. More importantly we have a series of institutions, laws, courts, banks that help mediate between the government and the governed and protect the less powerful from the more powerful.
Just voting by a populace does not solve a nations problems. Why is there no sense that their needs to be organizations that help Iraqis or any people feel they are nation they are the government?
October 10, 2005 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a truism in sales that all selling is really selling yourself. Before you can successfully sell a product, you have to convince the buyer that you are the person from whom they wish to buy. Trust the agent -- trust the company.
I do believe that in these days, the U.S. has put itself in the position of being unable to complete this essential element of the transaction.
That being so, the first step to "spreading democracy" must be putting our own house in order.
Beyond that, I agree with the conception that "democracy" and "human rights" should not be juxtaposed. They flow from the same well.
mp
October 10, 2005 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would be relatively easy to do if we 1 adopted European-style taxes on oil/gas 2. Simultaneously eased the economic burden caused by the taxes by progressively lowering taxes. 3. Variy the precise level of the tarriffs based on there being improvements in the exporting country's human rights conditions. 4. Because we'd need some of the oil tax revenue to fund int'lly coordinated research into energy alternatives, we'd need to frame the public discomfort from the tax as an essential sacrifice we all need to make for the war on terrorism and to lower our oil dependence in preparation for the "Peak Oil" problem.
dlw
October 10, 2005 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matt Yglesias had the answer this weekend. We should be trying to support and promote legitimate governments. I wouldn't actually use the word legitimate, because its meaning in relation to governments would be subject to debate. Instead, I'd use a simipler term: popularly supported. The basic principle of American democracy is that government gets its legitimacy from the consent of the people. Consent of the governed is the key concept. Generally, popularly supported governments will allow some voice to the population (whether through democracy or not), will respect at least most human rights, and will not be abusive to their populations. Popularly supported governments are also inherently stable governments, making them more reliable allies.
Ultimately, what we should be trying to promote are governments that meet the following three criteria (listed in order of importance):
- Popularly supported
- Not aggressive to the US or our allies
- Open to our people, ideas, and trade
Some hawks might want to put 2 over 1, but ultimately supporting unpopular governments (even if they are militarily friendly to us or antagonistic to our enemies) leads to problems for two reasons:First, unpopular governments are inherently unstable and likely to be replaced.
Second, if a government is unpopular and the US supports it, the US becomes the enemy of the people of that government. In my opinion, lots of our problems in the middle east result from our long support of the shah of Iran, a highly unpopular leader (though anti-Soviet and pro-American). Iranian Islamism evolved as a countermovement to the shah, demonizing the shah's american backer as the great satan. It succeeded and has been a bugbear for us in the Middle East ever since.
October 10, 2005 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a nation's populace believes that authority to govern is granted by G_d or Allah or whatever, does it follow that we cannot successfully manage a diplomacy based on respect for human rights? The answer must be an emphatic "No".
Funny, though: The US needs to confront the very same problem domestically. Until this issue is resolved at home, it will be impossible to advocate an effective foreign policy based on self-determination, without having our own rank hypocrisy being exposed.
October 10, 2005 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the issue here wystler. If a people believe in the divine right of their king to rule--and they like their monarch--than I'd say the monarchy is popularly supported, though the country may not be democratic. Such a country would certainly be a country we could support, assuming they are also non-aggressive and open.
October 10, 2005 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your statement here is true. Still, folks who believe that legitimacy is conferred inversely see themselves as subjects to divine law, and feel (with validation, given their own viewpoint) that our government is heretical or infidel. What you're referring to as popular support is merely acquiescence to the will of the divine.
This needn't preclude the ability to conduct meaningful diplomacy. It's certainly possible and desirable to reach a meeting of the minds on issues of human rights and, perhaps, personal liberty. My sole reason for the cautionary not was that an injection of America's belief in the source for governing authority (i.e., of/by/for the people) into value judgments on other nations can serve as an impediment.
October 10, 2005 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way to provide diplomatic cover for more democratic-oriented political changes in the 2/3rds world and guarantee that the changes will make the gov'ts favor more of the US interests.
dlw
October 10, 2005 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I see your point. I think we're basically in agreement. The people may consider the government divinely ordained rather than popularly supported. But if they like it, then I think we can (and probably have to) live with it.
I think you're right to caution against an Ameri-centric view of things. The key is to find out (empirically)whether the people think the government is legitimate and like it. Follow the people - - and respect the fact that they might like something different than we like.
October 10, 2005 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink