Today's presentation by Professor Modelski struck me as being somewhere between overly-optimistic and fatalistic at the same time. The idea there is an unstoppable trend toward democracy (optimistic) and that there is nothing anyone can do to promote democracy other than lead by example and support other democracies (fatalistic). Maybe fatalistic is too harsh but definitely deterministic (ehh can’t find the right word). It seems logical to me that there are ways that external forces can contribute to democratization in countries that are on their way there. Does his argument mean that help with institution/capacity building, aid for development and poverty reduction, political democratic conditionality, NGOs, international exchanges, political pressure on authoritarian regimes or support of democratic opposition (the list goes on and on) are completely irrelevant to democratization? If none of that works and it is only "innovation" that leads to inevitable democratization, does that mean that foreign policy or any other efforts for democratization from the outside are completely useless? What do you think?...If I understood him correctly, I am not convinced.
Claire de Lacvivier
PS Thanks to Matt for finally hlping me figure out how to post here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Prof. Modelski's presentation was rather dull and to be quite honest it didn't really strike me as being something new. I don't think he meant that nothing can be done to promote democracy other than leading by example, however I think his point was to emphasize how important this is. The point he made and with which I definitely agree is how appealing and attractive a functioning democratic sytem can be to other countries. Since democracies are by definition not meant to expand and impose their system on other countries (although this has been happening quite frequently in the past time and comes disguised as "democracy promotion") the only way democratic systems should be spread is to lead by good example. This would however be a very weak form of democracy promotion which wouldn't look very good on the political agenda of several nations. I think that within this whole debate of democracy promotion, the fact that democracy can only work when the people really want it and when it comes from within, is kind of getting lost. Germany for example which is regarded by many as one of the most stable democracies in the world has had to go through hell to achieve the system it currently has. Let's not forget that Hitler was elected through the means of a democratic system. All the governments pushing for the spread of democracy need to know that installing a democracy is something that may have very negative results if the country is unstable or the people aren't ready to have such a system.
However, the rise of unfavorable governments such as the Hamas or populists such as Haider, LePen, and co. is the price one has to pay for having a democratic system. After all democracies are meant to provide equal rights for everyone and sometimes a significant number of the population makes stupid decisions which then results in LePen advancing to the second round of the presidential elections, Joerg Haider being part of the Austrian government, and Pim Fortuyn's party being able to participate in the Dutch cabinet after the elections of 2002.
In the words of Wintson Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I would have to agree with this simple quote that for all the problems that arise from a democracy it is still the best option that man has thought of for organizing a group of people. It is my opinion that a successful democracy can only be established when the people wish to accept the benefits and costs in choosing that form of government.
Democracy cannot be imposed over a people and expect positive results without many years of re-education and the realization of the people that a democratic system is the best option for them. Although I believe that democracy is the best choice of government for almost every state in the world. There are regions of the world that democracy does not have the strength to rule and enforce laws. In these areas where tribalism and communal property systems are the norm democracy will take far longer to become established. That being said I hope that it is clear that democracy is not an overnight process but one that takes generations and gets better over time by reforming itself from the inside.
To conclude, Tiago makes an important point that although democracy is great it can bring consequences "if the country is unstable or the people aren't ready to have such a system." Democracies expand rights to minorities and create a podium for debate and reform but as mentioned before one must be aware of the power of democratic systems to install tyrants like Hitler, for it is through wondrous and boisterous applause that democracy falls.
Post a Comment