What democracy is, and is not

04.25.2003

The war's finally officially winding down. Bush is expected to make an announcement any minute now. I think the capture of Tareq Aziz, Iraq's Foreign Minister, was a good indication that the war was, indeed, over. Whether Saddam's a smear of ash in a sub-level bunker or a goat herder in Syria is irrelevant. He's no longer a factor in Iraqi politics.

So now we turn to the question of democratizing Iraq — which was the whole point of this war. This was outlined by, among others, Paul Wolfowitz in the idea of a "New American Century." Whether you agree w/ it or not (and many oppose it w/o having read its principles), the project is based on a radical new vision for American foreign policy. Essentially:

It is in America's interest to promote democratic values in the world.

Yes, this might be a case of "imposing our values" around the world. But those values include a free press, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, pluralism, gender and minority rights, electoral representative government, and other basic democratic principles. I, for one, have no problem globally promoting these values. I don't think female circumcision is just a matter of cultural choice. I don't think religious fanatics have a right to rule Arabs any more than they have a right to rule in Kansas.

So the question now is: What does it mean to democratize Iraq? Does that mean that any "popular expression of will" goes? Does that mean that any popularly chosen government is democratic? No.

A democracy — the way I define it — is not determined by popularity. Democracy doesn't mean that the people get anything it wants. A small town in Mississippi may vote to lynch all the black residents; sure that's majority rule, but it's NOT democratic. Democracy is not rule by the mob — no matter how large the mob is. Sure, religious fanatics can mobilize 2,000 protesters in Baghdad. But Iraq has 12 million citizens. They all deserve a voice in creating their government.

Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Dahl outlined some basic criteria for democracy. One of them is that a majority is free to change its mind. That implies mechanisms that make majority decisions impermanent. That's why democracies have elections. A citizenry that votes to make any decision binding forever has violated democratic principles.

Voters must be able to hold leaders accountable. That means frequent, regularly scheduled elections and other mechanisms to do so. Don't like Bush? We get to vote against him in 2004. We wouldn't accept a one-shot election that would make anyone (Bush, Gore, Nader, or anyone) president for life. Even if 90 percent of the vote went his or her way.

We should promote democracy in Iraq. And I think we will. But it shouldn't be just any type of populism. We don't want to turn Iraq into Chavez's Venezuela, Musharraf's Pakistan, or Peron's Argentina. We want to turn it into a democracy. That means we'll have to ensure that a new democratic Iraq gives equal rights to religious minorities, to the Kurds, to women, to homosexuals, to political dissidents, to artists, to scientists, to children, and anyone else we can think of.

Posted by Miguel at 06:08 PM

Comments

P.S. I realize that much of the "New American Century" doctrine is the product of so-called neocons (Neo Conservatives). There's a great deal of truth to that. Nevertheless, I think the policy itself is inherently NOT conservative. Traditionally, conservatives don't advocate radical, sweeping change (prefering status quo); they don't promote internationalist policies (prefering isolationism); they don't champion open, secular societies and democracy. I think the "New American Century" doctrine more properly fits a hawkish internationalist liberal paradigm.

Which I think explains why the doctrine is best championed by people like Vaclav Havel and Tony Blair, head of the Labour Party (Europe's oldest socialist party), and many liberals (in the philosophical sense of the word) and social democrats.

Posted by: miguel at April 25, 2003 09:50 PM

You ALWAYS side with Kansas.

I think that the democracy thing is great and all, but the things that preserve its intentions that we use are checks and balances. We also have a Constitution that is relatively unchangable. If Bush wants to eradicate a constitutionaly right...he has to really work at it. The permanency of law is pretty important, I think. I saw a thing on Daily Show and the guy was talking about how it would likely start off as a theocracy and grow into a more representative government. Fine by me. Europe did the same thing with the Catholic Church (hope it doesn't take as long for them).

Something to ponder.

Love,
Micah

Posted by: Micah at April 26, 2003 05:44 PM

Well, our Constitution is difficult to change. But ... it's also very very vague. Many of our most basic rights are entirely contained here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. Based on that, we've had 200 years of state, local, and national laws covering a range of issues (some of them repealed over time). And we've had numerous Supreme Court cases all based on that small vague statement.

But you're right, democracy also requires the Rule of Law. People who advocate simplistic notions of democracy need to really consider the implications of what unabashed majority rule would really mean.

Posted by: miguel at April 26, 2003 07:00 PM