Posted on 04/19/2006 4:04:02 AM PDT by RWR8189
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.
Your kids are doctors?
Yeah, so? It's "hard work". Did anyone say it wasn't? In fact, a certain President was continuously mocked when he said such a thing.
"Peace, constructive trade and general good-will would follow."
Socialists have used this line many times.
There's nothing dishonest about the mobs of French youths, they're very clear about what they want. Same goes for Chavez, Muqtada al Sadr, and Hamas. But, without wisdom, self restraint, and patience, democratic order quickly reverts into mob rule. America still maintains much of that, in comparison to most other nations, and our clunky political process is designed specifically to keep us from rushing into disaster.
While I don't think that any people are culturally incapable of self rule, it's safe to say that as a group some people aren't ready for it, and that other people lose their capacity for it. Liberty never survives for long without vigilant protection, and a people unwilling to stand guard will not long enjoy liberty's blessings.
This sort of sums up the birth and death of "Nation Building"! It was a noble but naive experiment when the Dems were pushing it...., and, why in the hell Repubs picked up the banner (other than to prove their "Compassion") is beyond me!
It ain't "All One World" and probably never will be..., all the blathering of liberal professors will not create it!!! Basically, the vast majority of mankind is but a short period away from reversion to animal savagery, only awaiting one disaster or another to prove it!
What it mostly requires is a determination to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.For it is when we consider posterity that we see ourselves, in our various conditions, as being united in our objectives.
Maybe. Maybe.
It is certainly true that if nation building and democracy fails now in Iraq, it will probably never again be tried by the US. If we fail at this one, it will become part as much a part of the national fabric as Lincoln's phrase about "gvmt of the people, by the people, and for the people".
A lot rests on the endeavor in Iraq, and conservatives have certainly given our all at the project. It's true that we have had to fight the libs at home every step of the way, but frankly that fit's into the fabric of reality too.
I sincerely hope we are successful in Iraq. And the sooner the better. But it becomes increasing clear that we cannot stay there much longer -- resistance grows. And all talk about "republic" not with-standing, we still ARE a DEMOCRATIC republic, and "the people" DO get their say.
The real talented leaders are probably not in government, at all. When the CEO of Exxon retires with $400m and the President earns $400,000/yr where will you find the best man?
I wouldn't call Ralph Peters a clown if I were you. He was imbedded with the troops and he saw what is going on. He also said there is no civil war as the left tries to make everyone believe
Not like certain cities in America I could mention, NY Cities Tammany Hall, The Daly machine in Chicago, the Pentergast machine in KC, the KKK (in many parts of the country)....
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill
"This sort of sums up the birth and death of "Nation Building"! It was a noble but naive experiment...
Basically, the vast majority of mankind is but a short period away from reversion to animal savagery, only awaiting one disaster or another to prove it!"
Got to say, a nice job of clearly articulating the opening for every brutal totalitarian regime that has graced the planet with the assent of its people. Your perception is based on two points 1) People Don't Know What's Good For Them and 2) We C-C-Can't Do It, It's TOOO HAAARD!!
I hear people say "You can't build the foundations of a democracy overnight". True enough, but it took thousands and thousands of years to invent the first wheel. How long do you think the second one took? I'm pleased to see so many posts beating me to the punch on the two foundations for viable democracy: 1) The Rule of Law (priciple above tribal loyalties) and 2) The Right and Ability To Own and Conrtrol Property (as opposed to the State or organized crime--pardon the redundancy)
People CAN learn from the successes and failures of others, and societies CAN progress. Furthermore, we MUST do everything in our power to advance those causes for which so many before us have paid the ultimate price. I understand that it's hard and sometimes the obstacles seem too large to overcome. But we are Americans. We are people who love and undersatand Freedom, and know the value of sharing it with others. It's What We Do. WE MUST NOT BACK DOWN IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY. These are the times that separate leaders and heroes from sheep and victims.
I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw years ago which said: "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR OR I'LL KILL YOU!"
We are spending our blood and treasure to give Iraq a chance..., what they do with it is up to them. However, since African and most the Middle Eastern "Countries" exist due to Western Colonial cartography..., I certainly don't expect to see much in the way of democratic miracles in my lifetime!
Well put.
Michael Mandelbaum in his newest book calls it "State Building"
"The term "state building" implies a similarity to architecture, inwhich the builder can control every part of the prcess: drawing up the plans, gathering the building materials, hiring the workers, and supervising the construction. State building however, more closely resembles horticlture. It's a collaboration between human agents and forces beyond short tern human control. In the case of horticlture, the independent collaborator is nature. The equivalent for state building is culture...."
Page 79
All we can do is plant the seed, water it, pull out the weeds and hope the rains come at the right time and in the right amount, and hope (pray) for a good crop. Something so many people don't seem to understand is what we are doing in the world in general and the Arab world in particular is a long term project, it's going to be 20 years (at least) before we see if we've gotten a good crop or not. The alternatives however are (IMO) amoral at least.
I think the 21st Century will be remembered as the era when all of the idealistic notions of democracy are officially consigned to the dustbin of history. Here in the Western Hemisphere we've deluded ourselves into thinking that "democracy" in and of itself represents some kind of ideal governing structure. This is primarily because the organized human settlement of this part of the world has occurred very recently in historical terms -- which means the place isn't "old" enough to have yet been encumbered with the cultural and economic flaws that make democracy pretty futile in most other parts of the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.