Articles of the Month

Import Tariffs on Democracy

On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush, on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, announced to the American people and the world that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."¹ The tyrannical rule of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ended and the symbolic torch of Lady Liberty is finally shining on Iraq and her people. President Bush's venture in Iraq signals the revival of the American foreign policy involving "democratic imperialism" and, as Bush states, would "serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region" as he prepares to adopt a tough stance on democratizing the world.² Democratization by force proves to be a difficult task and the West often fails in doing so as they are simultaneously concerned with their own interests. Many of these ideas are rejected due to a number of factors that involve cultural, historical, developmental, and political perspectives. Democracy cannot be spread with one stroke of a sword, and in order for a country to adopt it the people must have the desire and the determination to go through with the long and arduous process, as well as the proper institutions and historical background to support it.

The task of expanding democracy is often characterized as being a battle between good and evil. There are those who want to introduce democracy to spread freedom and liberty to all while others want to limit it in order to keep power for themselves. However, not all those in opposition are evil and repressive: some have different mindsets and cultures that simply do not fit in the characteristics or priorities of a democratic society. Thomas A. Metzger writes in the Hoover Digest that in order to understand the development of a repressive political society into a more liberal one, one must "depend on linguistically and analytically competent study of that society's history, cultural trends, and patterns of opinion."³ He further argues that some cultures, particularly the Chinese, puts economic progress and prosperity above democracy, citing that many people from Taiwan, a democratic society, voluntarily and eagerly move to China to achieve economic success, while not being bothered with the lack of human rights. Others will argue that they would rather have a fast-acting and reliable dictator to improve the economy more quickly, tackle internal problems, or have the trains run on time than to fight the existing order. We can look to history for examples of this desperation and passiveness; the Germans in the 1930s were prepared to accept Hitler as their leader, even though he limited their freedoms, because the Weimar Republic failed to give them what they needed. For a more recent example we can now turn our attention to the Middle East and how the Islamic traditions of the Arab people sometimes conflict with the ideals of democracy.

Exporting democracy in the Middle East is seen by many as a political move directed at achieving a certain advantage, whether economical or political influence, rather than a moral obligation. Part of the reason why the United States and her allies have been reluctant to force democracy in some parts of the region is because some authoritarian Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, are key allies in the fight to stop terrorism and Islamic radicalism.⁴ Many think that the American push for democratization in the Middle East is a way for them to get their hands on the rich oil reserves of the region. This greatly disrupts the process of democratization as the democracy-imposing country would be seen as having an ulterior motive, one that does not benefit the conquered people.

Democracy as a Western ideal clash with the values of Islam as the Muslim world, as well as other politically repressive societies, has fallen behind the West in the context of modernity. In his book, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, Noah Feldman argues that democracy is hard to impose on the Middle East because of the resilience of Islam. When the Ottoman Empire was on its last days many modern Arab scholars wanted to implement Western style ideas, particularly democracy, to ensure its survival; however, this was brushed aside by Arab nationalists who believed that Islam, an important part of the culture and defines the characteristics of the area, was being rooted out of society.⁵ Furthermore, the history between the West and the East (i.e. Africa and Asia) has nothing been short of uneasiness, filled with doubt and distrust. "Through a combination of colonization, indirect rule, gunboat diplomacy, and simple influence," it is easy to conclude that the West is often trying to democratize the Middle East in order to control it.⁶ This leads us to the next topic, which is the historical perspective.

One reason why democracies fail outside the West is that there is no historical context in which to implement it. Benjamin Barber, a Merrill House speaker, asks how one can force democracy on repressive regimes if they have "only known tyranny, theocracy, dictatorship, or even totalitarianism."⁷ From time to time, people from these newly-forced democratic societies, even if the democratic institutions are created by a foreign country, will continue to act undemocratically as they are accustomed to solving some problems in a particular way. Also, Europe's own transition from absolute monarchies to representative government took a long time and the transformation materialized in stages. Whether it began as fearful barons forced the limitation of the monarch's power, as is the case with the signing of the Magna Carta, or through the granting of the vote to women, democracy in the West as we know it today did not occur overnight, and to assume that other countries will cleverly and eagerly embrace this forced change if it is shoved down their throats is unrealistic.

Another viewpoint argues that the West is not simply exporting democracy but is exporting market liberalism. Some may point out that there is no problem with this as it makes the lives of people easier and that economic prosperity will eventually justify forced democratization. On the other hand, this in itself creates problems. Amy Chua, a professor at Yale Law School, believes that this democratization and liberalization of the markets can lead to ethnic tension and violence.⁸ In some countries, minorities control a vast amount of the wealth and flourish in the economy as a result of a freer market. However, the disenfranchised and resentful majority are given powers through democracy to act on this injustice. This eventually leads to conflicts as both sides struggle to keep or change the current status. Therefore, the democratization of these countries has failed and caused more problems than it has solved.

Forcing democracy on anyone is in itself not very democratic. The United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan under the banner of liberty, that is to say that it must free the world of tyranny and grant freedom to all peoples. The democratic imperialism mentioned earlier can be related to the expansionistic views of the Nineteenth Century and the idea of the "white man's burden". The United States believes that it is expanding democracy because it is their duty to do so as many are incapable of building it themselves, therefore, creating a sense of its superiority among others. This sense of duty, however, has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive that is bigger than democratization itself. It is important to understand that in order to achieve a successful transition from repression to liberty the people must want it and it must happen in stages. Exporting democracy is idealistic and it would be much appreciated if it worked every time; a realistic assessment will dictate, however, that even when it does work it will not occur overnight.

Notes

1. CNN.com. 1 May 2003. CNN. <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/> (18 Nov. 2005).
2. Omar G. Encarnación. "The Follies of Democratic Imperialism." Colombia International Affairs Online. March 2005. Cambridge University Press. <http://80-www.ciaonet.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/olj/wpj/spring05/spring05f.pdf (18 Nov. 2005).
3. Thomas A. Metzger. "China: Collision Course?" Hoover Digest. Summer 2004. Hoover Institution. <http://www.hooverdigest.org/043/metzger.html> (20 Nov. 2005).
4. Encarnación. "Follies."
5. Noah Feldman. After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2003, p. 239.
6. Feldman. Jihad. P. 28.
7. "Carnegie Council Covers Aftermath of The Iraq War." CCEIA.org. June 2004. Carnegie Council On Ethics and International Affairs. <http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/inprint/4999.html (21 Nov. 2005).
8. Amy Chua. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. New York: Doubleday, 2002.