October 28, 2002
The project of Democracy

Building a functioning, self-sustaining democracy is hard. It requires more than just elections. The institutions, the constitution, the rule of law all play a part. When we say "democracy," it is shorthand for much more than elections. But ultimately, none of this matters if the idea and the ideal of democracy is not understood and cherised by the population. If the people don't think democracy is a good thing and worth defending, it will vanish. Some outward signs of democracy (usually elections) may remain, like the facade of a building otherwise gutted by flame. What democracy needs is deep support. It has to be an inextricable part of life, that the mere thought of not having does not even arise. Deep support also leads to the willingness to defend democracy when it comes under attack.

Building deep support is something that requires time. Lots of time. Many generations. Peoples and cultures have their own transgenerational memories. Those cultures that have no memory of democracy will find it much harder to build a functioning, modern, liberal democracy. In the case of Russia, there is no such memory. The country never has had anything resembling a modern liberal system of government, and the deep memories of the culture reflect the totalitarian rule of the czars and the communists. The idea of democracy lives a marginalized life. The elections do exist, but deep support is missing.

The cause of this lengthy introduction is this article in the German newspaper Handelblatt. I have not seen a compilation like this in the English press, so here are some highlights. The headline is "Enough of this democracy," and the article is a summary of comments made in Russia since the storming of the theater. A high-ranking officer of the Alpha commando unit that stormed the theater is quoted as saying "Enough of this democracy and human rights." Other comments came in a similar vein. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, Boris Volkhonsky said, "Laden with the backpack of 20th century liberal values one cannot fight terrorism." Leonid Radsikhivsky described as "very liberal" demanded the introduction of a "hard police state." As in 1941 with the German invasion, it is the survival of the country that is at stake. A "Kremlin politicologist" by the name of Sergey Markov opines: "We can be proud of Russia again." He said that the Russian had feared a storming of the theater only because they were not sure that the secrer services could carry it out competently. "This is the rebirth of our homeland."

Read these comments again and imagine them in a western democracy. How unthinkable are they? The overwhelming torrent of commentary after September 11th was a worry about the erosion of civil liberties in the wake of the attack, not an active call for their erosion. Despite the shrillest auguries from the doomsayers and Bush-bashers, America remains a free country. It remains free because the concepts of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are an inseparable part of American life. The situation is not perfect, and there is much room for improvement, but the fundamental disposition of the American republic remains intact.

I wrote a few days ago about Russia's relationship with the west. It is a country that shares a lot of cultural heritage with the west, although it is lacking that heritage in the political field. It should be relatively easy to merge Russia into the western mainstream with so much in common, yet these reactions prove how hard it is. And how much harder is it going to be in Iraq? The Japanese model has been put forward as an example of a successful rebuilding and remodeling of a pathological society. From its imperialist pre-war state to the post-war democracy, Japan is a success. But has the idea of democracy really taken root in Japan? The real power lies with unelected bureaucrats and the political elite. Elections are almost secondary, as the LDP has to screw up really badly to lose. In fact, it has screwed up really badly as it has steered the country to a decade of economic decline, but even so it remains by far the largest party. More important than the number of seats the LDP gets in the Diet is the balance of power among the LDP's factions. And the Japanese economy is pre-capitalist with a few pockets of corporate excellence in a sea of rotting zombies. But the Japan model was successful to the extent that the system in principle should be able to heal itself and the woes afflicting the country. And it has been successful in neutralizing the threat from Japan.

Reform-minded politicians in repressive regimes see the need for more popular support and one solution is to experiment with democracy. Or perhaps more precisely, elections. By giving the people a say in elections they hope to defuse anger and resentment as well as build support for their rule. It's a good first step, but again it must come with the other elements of the Democracy Package. Building an understanding of and appreciation for liberal democratic virtues is an integral part of this. So is having a free capitalist economy.

It did not get much play in the Blogosphere, but elections have been held in Bahrain, and the Islamist candidates won most of the seats. Gulf News puts of a brave face on it, by claiming that secular candidates did better this time around than in municipal elections held earlier, when they did not win any seats at all. The article goes on:

"Despite this improvement, nonetheless, they have to admit they lost and lost big to the religious movement."

The main reason, he says, is the past 30 years in which the arena has been occupied exclusively by the Islamists. "These movements have been closer to the people; they have the mosques, the charities and ability to influence people with all their talk of the Holy Quran."

The liberals, meanwhile, have been "absent" since they clashed with the government in the mid-1970s over the constitutional rights after the National Assembly was dissolved in 1975.

"They isolated themselves. They were alienated and people could no longer understand what they were talking about because younger generations have been influenced by the rise of Islamism with the Iranian revolution and other religious movements," he explained.


Is it possible for an Arab country to reform its political system from authoritarian rule to a democracy? The lure of the glory of the past is great. By promising a return to old-fashioned Islamic virtues, the religious parties play on an ancient cultural meme in the Arab world. Arab culture achieved its greatest glory when it was supposedly pure and untainted. All later misfortune is due to straying from the true path of Islam. It is a simple message with great emotive power and attraction. After all, it offers a solution without having to import any ideas from the infidel West.

The reason we were welcomed in Afghanistan is because the logical extreme of this line of thought had triumphed there. The Taliban imposed the strictest Islamic regime in history. It was not very popular. Likewise in Iran the erstwhile attractions of the Islamic revolution have long since dissolved in the caustic reality of everyday life. The murmurs of revolution are growing stronger in Persia now.

Do the people really have to suffer the reality of theocratic thuggery before they reject Islamofascism? Even in Saudi Arabia, which is already close to a theocracy, the cause of an even more extreme form of Islamism is finding converts. It is going to be a long and difficult task to establish any understanding or support for liberal democracy in these countries. As the Gulf News articles says, there is precious little internal intellectual support for it.

Do people want to be free? Do people want to be prosperous? I would answer yes to both questions. The second will find universal acclaim, the first won't. The basis for totalitarian ideology is exactly the denying of freedom to the people. Whether it be the call for a police state in Russia, or for a strict version of Sharia in the Arab world, the instincts for state-imposed restrictions of freedom run deep in countries where there is no memory of democracy. But even in the supposedly free-wheeling Netherlands the people are willing to trade freedom for apparent security.

It's not going to be easy at all.

UPDATE: Related commentary can be found at OxBlog and Sgt. Stryker.

Posted by qsi at October 28, 2002 09:51 PM | TrackBack (0)
Read More on Middle East , Russia
Comments

"Do people want to be free? Do people want to be prosperous?"

I would ask a question in return: do they want to be free and/ or prosperous of their own right, or do they want to be so at someone else's expense?

I think that one of America's hidden virtues is its youth as a nation. America is not burdened by history in the way that, say, the Arabs are. There is really no golden past to harken back to that forms the bedrock of cultural and national identity; if anything the idea that progress is not only possible but inevitable and that the greatness of the nation lies in the future rather than the past, that is the bedrock of the identity. Without this burden of the past, the society is relatively unencumbered to change and adapt and to work for a future. By contrast, for so many societies the desired future lies somewhere in the golden past, so real change and progress is not possible.

When that golden past is also bound up with the idea of conquering ancient enemies or unbelievers, then I think it highly unlikely that the majority of members of such a society will choose for themselves a free and prosperous future as they will be unable or unwilling to resist the call of conquest and conflict, of reaffirmation of identity in fighting.

The worst nightmares of the world are hidden in many a society's happiest dreams. I'm reminded of Robert Kaplan's _Balkan Ghosts_, an excellent book written on the eve of the Yugoslav wars of the early 90s. Somewhere in the book it is noted that the heart of the Balkans' troubles is that every nationality in the region had at one time a "Greater" version of itself that was territorially greater than what they had at the present time, and that the golden age of all these nationalities took place when they were "Greater." The problem is that the Balkans were not nearly big enough to accomodate the Greater versions of the existing nations.

Posted by: FeloniousPunk on October 28, 2002 10:48 PM

Excellent points. To answer your question, most peoples not only want to be prosperous, but feel entitled to being prosperous. It's the great international version of Victim Status as it is promulgated in post-modern leftist group-identity politics. The greatest prize you can achieve in their lexicon to be a victim of some sort. The sense of entitlement clashes with the obvious lack of prosperity. The rational way out is to analyze why other cultures are more prosperous and take action accordingly. But it is much easier to wallow in self-pity and complain about the evil forces conspiring against you. This is particularly acute in contemporaneous Arab culture. The pathological focus on Israel as the cause of all their problems makes them completely incapable of facing the reality of the situation.

So being prosperous at others' expense does not come into it from their point of view. It's a matter of regaining the rightful status that is at stake, and in order to achieve that the perceived obstacle needs to be eliminated first.

I would agree that this is one of America's great strengths. Not being obsessed with your past is a good thing. I touched upon this briefly here: http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000060.html#000060

(I know, I need to fix the posting of links here.)

Posted by: qsi on October 28, 2002 11:25 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?