Democracy's Global Crisis

[NATO AIR]

unrealistic expectations

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/democracys_global_crisis_not_t.html
April 19, 2006
Democracy's Global Crisis: Not the Promised Cure-All
By Ralph Peters

Not so long ago we were told that democracy would sweep the world. A new age of governmental decency would dawn for hundreds of millions. Peace, constructive trade and general good-will would follow.

Now, as the number of real and nominal democracies continues to grow, we see little improvement in the human condition, no diminution of corruption, burgeoning discontents--and turmoil where we meant to implant peace.

Even in the West, where democracy is deep-rooted, there's a crisis of mediocrity and will. Elsewhere, democracy has been taken as a license to loot, as a launching pad for demagogues, or as a means of settling old scores.

Have we been wrong? Is democracy a tailored suit that fits only the most-developed forms? Is it culturally determined, after all? Does it fail to guarantee freedom and a population's general welfare?

Have we over-estimated democracy's utility?

The problem isn't with democracy. It's with us. We expected too much of a tool, forgetting that specific skills are required to use it well. We imagined that others could master in a day what we spent a millennium practicing. And we failed to allow for basic human emotions and bigotries: Hatreds, jealousies, ethnic and religious rivalries, and the fierce competition for resources in the lands of never-enough.

Democracy remains by far the most-promising form of government--but it's much more difficult to master than we pretended. A series of elections does not constitute democracy. Democracy also requires a spirit of compromise, of shared values and ultimate goals, of social and personal integrity, and a still-rare-in-this-world measure of identification with the state--not just with ties of blood or belief.

To function as we demand, democracy also may require general wealth sufficient to prevent violent struggles over resources or the legitimization of theft from one group for the benefit of another.

Today, there are two crises of democracy, neither of which need prove fatal, but both of which must be faced honestly.

The worst crisis is in the developing world, where democracy too often has been used to implement the dictatorship of the largest tribe; to legitimize the post-colonial kingship of "presidents for life"; to divide minorities, rather than unite them; and to erect reactionary regimes that masquerade as populist governments.

In too much of the world, election to public office remains a license to steal, to suppress and to oppress. In states with dysfunctional economies, frequent government upheavals stymie progress. And in those ill-drawn states that have no deep sense of collective identity, democracy succumbs to a constant re-division of spoils.

In Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia, the recent votes for leftist regimes were not triumphs of democracy, but expressions of dissatisfaction with democracy's inability to meet popular expectations (and, of course, the balloting also reflected destructive populism in the tragic Latin-American tradition).

In Africa, from Nigeria to Kenya, elections prove frustratingly unable to deliver good government. A vote may change the party in office, but fails to alter the culture of the candidates. On that tragic continent, the recent progress has been largely rhetorical, with a new generation of leaders saying the right things, but continuing to practice theft-by-incumbency.

In the Middle East, elections are either non-existent, wildly rigged, or won by Islamist parties (the lure of primitive identities may trump the desire for Western-model freedoms). Iran's "democracy" is poisoned with fraud, and Turkey has been raped and left bleeding by decades of corrupt party politics (paving the way for fundamentalist victories). Iraq, with its bitter history and truculent factions, is the great laboratory for the region. While there is reason for sober optimism, the experiment in Baghdad is far from a guaranteed success.

India is a national success story, but, at the local level, its democracy is that of the gun, the boss and the bribe. Pakistan has proven itself incompetent to master democracy and probably will remain so. Afghanistan may surprise the world with its success--but only if the Kabul government can assert a monopoly of coercive power. And Russia, that other troubled Asian state, is less a democracy today than Chavez's Venezuela.

Still, none of this means that democracy must fail--only that it is not "a machine that will go of itself." Democracy takes time, labor, commitment and, sometimes, the willingness to fight against the forces of the past. It also requires that rarest of human commodities, honesty. Contrary to our illusions, the one thing democracy isn't is easy.

Which brings us to the other, un-remarked crisis of democracy--the descent into governmental mediocrity in the West. In Europe, the end of the Cold War brought democracy, but rarely inspiring leadership. Eastern Europe celebrated, then woke up with a hangover. Old Europe slipped backward.

At a time when Europe's moribund socio-economic systems urgently need reform, the continent is strikingly devoid of promising leaders. Germany hasn't had first-rate leadership since the 1970s, and France has been poorly led since the late 1960s. Italy never had great leadership in the post-war era. Britain was blessed with the glorious Mrs. Thatcher and the early Mr. Blair, but the current political landscape looks bleak.

On the continent, a new tyranny of the haves threatens the soul, if not the outward forms, of democracy. The recent strikes in France were an attempt to stop the clock, and Euro-apartheid separates not only white skins from brown or black, but the securely employed from the never-to-be-employed. Soft socialism has created a general malaise among populations, forging a continent of critics, not creators. And the European Union has deadened, rather than enhanced, the continent's prospects with its dictatorship of the Eurocrats.

Even here in the United States, the past few decades have seen the triumph of the mediocre. Was Ronald Reagan our last visionary? Other than John McCain, is there a single galvanizing presidential possibility in either political party?

Has our gotcha culture driven greatness from the political stage, leaving it to the burrowing little souls? Is it to be an enduring American paradox that a country that facilitates internet porn and celebrates Oprah-style public confessions demands a private and public blandness in political leaders that eliminates the aptitude for greatness?

Have we entered the age of "little presidents?" Can America lead the world, if America is not led well? Make no mistake: This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. The self-interested corporatist leadership in Washington is a bipartisan problem.

Democracy isn't "over." It's only beginning. No other system of government approaches its potential for decency, opportunity and equity. But democracy is also hard. Those who prescribed it as a cure-all now must face the possibility that the medicine may make the patient sicker for years before recovery can begin.

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy.” He recently returned from trips to Iraq and West Africa.
(c) 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

 

[Adam's Apple]

Very thought-provoking article, NATO, especially for those who think that democracy in the Middle East should be up and running efficiently in three years' time. Peters makes you understand that democracy requires not only political change but cultural change as well.

 

[jillian]

Very thought-provoking article, NATO, especially for those who think that democracy in the Middle East should be up and running efficiently in three years' time. Peters makes you understand that democracy requires not only political change but cultural change as well.

Do you think that's what his article says? I'm not saying it doesn't particularly. But I see it differently.... I think the article makes it clear that the folk who talk about imposing democracy may get more than they bargained for when the democratically chosen leaders of these new democracie might not be our cup of tea. Thus, democratization could backfire (as with the election of the Hamas terrorists).

 

[StoptheMadness1]

We absolutely need to remember that we in America live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

...and not a plain and simple "Democracy".

Democracy is simply mob rule.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Maybe we have truly forgotten...

"Democracy, n:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

-- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932), since withdrawn.

Isn't this interesting?

"...negating property rights"

I seem to remember a supreme court ruling regarding this...

Justices Affirm Property Seizures
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A01

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling."

 

[NATO AIR]

Do you think that's what his article says? I'm not saying it doesn't particularly. But I see it differently.... I think the article makes it clear that the folk who talk about imposing democracy may get more than they bargained for when the democratically chosen leaders of these new democracie might not be our cup of tea. Thus, democratization could backfire (as with the election of the Hamas terrorists).

Agreed (one of the points, Peters is famous for making you think on different levels in his longer essays like this)

This point is particulary true if you lack a good understanding of the ethnic, religious and tribal differences and grievances in a nation, as we pathetically did in Iraq. Also with Palestine and Egypt, we fail to understand the draw of starving, suffering people to a party (no matter how evil) who nevertheless provides food, medicine and other critical services that the regime in charge does not.

 

[NATO AIR]

Very thought-provoking article, NATO, especially for those who think that democracy in the Middle East should be up and running efficiently in three years' time. Peters makes you understand that democracy requires not only political change but cultural change as well.

Yes, and a great degree of patience and careful management. It will be decades before there is real progress, especially in a place with eroded (or non-existent) state infrastructures.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, and a great degree of patience and careful management. It will be decades before there is real progress, especially in a place with eroded (or non-existent) state infrastructures.

I guess we shall see if politics gives them the time they need. A couple of decades of consistant messages from the US is highly unlikely and we are far from the only players there. Lots of folks want a piece of that action.

 

[Said1]

We absolutely need to remember that we in America live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

...and not a plain and simple "Democracy".

Democracy is simply mob rule.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Maybe we have truly forgotten...

"Democracy, n:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

-- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932), since withdrawn.

Isn't this interesting?

"...negating property rights"

I seem to remember a supreme court ruling regarding this...

Justices Affirm Property Seizures
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A01

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling."

Actually, the ideal is a Liberal Democracy which can be implemented through various constitutionally structured governments, but essentially, individual freedoms and state authority is clearly defined through a constitutional document, either written or unwritten....if you will. Some don't put individual rights above other laws, but still uphold individual freedoms too, like the UK.

 

[jillian]

Agreed (one of the points, Peters is famous for making you think on different levels in his longer essays like this)

This point is particulary true if you lack a good understanding of the ethnic, religious and tribal differences and grievances in a nation, as we pathetically did in Iraq. Also with Palestine and Egypt, we fail to understand the draw of starving, suffering people to a party (no matter how evil) who nevertheless provides food, medicine and other critical services that the regime in charge does not.

Hell, yes!!! Exactly!! They had leadership who didn't care about the needs of the people and who diverted desperately needed funds to their own personal use. And then Abbas was unable to make inroads. Hungry people don't have much choice. (Which is why I always say that educated, well-fed, employed people are much less likely to blow themselves up). I am actually hoping that, at some point, Hamas starts to actually govern and move toward normalcy.

 

[Said1]

Which is why I always say that educated, well-fed, employed people are much less likely to blow themselves up).

Characteristics of a successful democracy; wealth, education and secularism (governments) also have strong correlations to freer markets.

 

[NATO AIR]

Hell, yes!!! Exactly!! They had leadership who didn't care about the needs of the people and who diverted desperately needed funds to their own personal use. And then Abbas was unable to make inroads. Hungry people don't have much choice. (Which is why I always say that educated, well-fed, employed people are much less likely to blow themselves up). I am actually hoping that, at some point, Hamas starts to actually govern and move toward normalcy.

It is a reasonable possibility that Hamas could eventually do just that.... look at how Hezbollah is facing reality in Lebanon and working within the system, not only moderating, but compromising and sacrificing to make it work... and all this from a position of electoral strength.

 

[jillian]

Characteristics of a successful democracy; wealth, education and secularism (governments) also have strong correlations to freer markets.

All true and well-said. But laissez faire economics also leads to an underclass of impoverished, marginal people. So a balance between free markets and steps that encourage a strong middle class lead to stronger, successful democracy.

 

[Said1]

All true and well-said. But laissez faire economics also leads to an underclass of impoverished, marginal people. So a balance between free markets and steps that encourage a strong middle class lead to stronger, successful democracy.

i.e. Keynesian economics, or as Thatcher like to say "the Nanny State". The age old argument,"Do freer markets suport or subvert democracies...do democracies support or subvert free markets?" You don't have to answer.

 

[jillian]

It is a reasonable possibility that Hamas could eventually do just that.... look at how Hezbollah is facing reality in Lebanon and working within the system, not only moderating, but compromising and sacrificing to make it work... and all this from a position of electoral strength.

True. It was much easier for Hamas to sit back and instigate violence as a marginal party and not as the government entity. There couldn't be any real retaliation because it wasn't the "government" attacking Israel. However, now any acts that are committed by Hamas would be subject to the same type of retaliation as any other nation that decides to take aggressive military action. This might prove to be a deterrent and "encourage" Hamas to act in its people's best interests.

I think if Israel doesn't move too far to the right in response to the election of Hamas, there might be a possibility for some type of discussion, at a minimum.

 

[jillian]

i.e. Keynesian economics, or as Thatcher like to say "the Nanny State". The age old argument,"Do freer markets suport or subvert democracies...do democracies support or subvert free markets?" You don't have to answer.

Far wiser people than I haven't been able to answer that question.

...though I was never a huge proponent of Thatcher's or Reagan's idea of economics.

 

[archangel]

Hell, yes!!! Exactly!! They had leadership who didn't care about the needs of the people and who diverted desperately needed funds to their own personal use. And then Abbas was unable to make inroads. Hungry people don't have much choice. (Which is why I always say that educated, well-fed, employed people are much less likely to blow themselves up). I am actually hoping that, at some point, Hamas starts to actually govern and move toward normalcy.

okay smarty pants please explain OBL(UBL) and the UAE and Saudi Arabian princes as well as many others including Syria and Iran who feed and cloth and guarantee payments to the families of the suicide bombers...they are well fed,educated and I suppose employeed until the bang.... :teeth:

 

[Said1]

okay smarty pants please explain OBL(UBL) and the UAE and Saudi Arabian princes as well as many others including Syria and Iran who feed and cloth and guarantee payments to the families of the suicide bombers...they are well fed,educated and I suppose employeed until the bang.... :teeth:

I guess the money provides enough incentive to do it. They are not fed, clothed etc prior to payment.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess the money provides enough incentive to do it. They are not fed, clothed etc prior to payment.

you mean we coulda just bought the suckers off all along????

 

[archangel]

I guess the money provides enough incentive to do it. They are not fed, clothed etc prior to payment.

ya mean they strap c-4 to naked bodies...malnurished...and no last meal? I beg to differ... intel says different...not to mention common sense!

 

[Said1]

you mean we coulda just bought the suckers off all along????

Probably. Talked them into throwing water baloons instead "you throw baloon at the infidels and you get 77 virgins" along with the cash. sounds good to me. :huh: