The question of whether democracy should be viewed as an ideal to be aspired to by all nations is a subject of much debate. Since by democracy one typically is referring to western democracies (USA, Europe etc.) the notion of having to aspire to a norm emanating from this group of countries now appears to be anathema to much of the third world. Indeed, some involved in policymaking in western countries seem ready to concede that the democracy barometer may be just another way to impose western values and hegemony upon third world nations. Layered upon this ideological debate is the seeming correlation between democratic societies and economic power (with China being the obvious outlier). Ultimately, do people who live in societies without representative and transparent government really care about those trappings if their basic needs such as shelter and health care are being taken care of? Do native Kuwaitis need to have a western style political and judicial system if those institutions are not part of the social and political contexts of that society. (Jreisat 2002) Why should democracy be an aspirational goal? Kuwait has a per capita income of $31,640, life expectancy is 76 years for men and 80 years for women and the government guarantees the financial wellbeing of all Kuwaits http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/791053.stm
Why should they be striving to mimic the western style of representative government? A benevolent dictator ruling a country with great resources which are shared in some measure with the polity may not seem like a bad deal compared to some alternatives.
Democracy is best seen as an alternative for the totalitarian regimes where the leaders' only purpose appear to be the acquisition and consolidation of power at the expense of the citizens. During the cold war era, the rule of Josef Stalin and his successors served as a cautionary tale for emerging nations.
If they didn't align themselves with the western democracies that too could be the fate of their citizenry. Millions killed for dissenting or starved to death under misguided societal re engineering not to mention the bread lines. The western European countries have had their despots, their revolutions, their bloody wars and reigns of terror but by the post WWII era, those upheavals had been relegated to history. For those developing countries who still decided to flirt with the communist system, the CIA would implement its persuasive capabilities and if that didn't work the right hand of god would be brought to bear on the recalcitrant.
Since the Castros seized power in Cuba in 1959, the regime has evoked strong feelings from supporters and detractors. Detachment is extremely rare in this area. Supporters compare Cuba under the Castros with Cuba under Batista and conclude that the society is much more egalitarian. Why should Cuba become a democracy ? It isn't the heritage of the country, furthermore, it is the system of government belonging to its nemesis. They posit that Castro has improved health care and in doing so improved the lives of millions. Critics say that Cuba had one of the highest levels of health care before the revolution as measured by infant mortality and numbers of doctors. They extrapolate that if Cuba had continued on the pre-revolution trajectory, it would have achieved a much higher standard of living for its citizens at less cost to personal freedoms. Even as I embark on a comparative analysis of the heath care system of the US and Cuba it is hard to be certain that the statistics on health care are accurate. The analogy is that after the fall of the Soviet bloc the pervasive falsification of official government statistics was revealed; so the statistics from any repressive regime should be viewed with caution.
Is there (or should there have to be ) a choice between health care and freedom? The right to health care is enshrined in the Cuban Constitution http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/0905/mr-features1.html while in the USA the we have our freedoms under the Bill of Rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Tamara
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tamara raises a very interesting point on democracy and whether it is "one-size-fits all." Below is a link to a transcript from a conference co-sponsored by Century Foundation and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung titled: Supporting Democracy: Pressing the Re-set Button on International Policy. We had the great fortune of having George Soros as one of our speakers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/sorostranscript.pdf
or find video link on this page: http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=EV&pubid=250
Thinking about our class discussion yesterday about how the collapse of the financial system is undoubtedly going to bring many changes to our world, governments, and management structures, I went back to the transcript of the Soros segment of this conference. Soros made some very interesting and insightful remarks regarding the collapse of the economic system and the changes it will bring to the world--and how he connects it to thoughts on democracy.
Soros stated that we had a “paradigm that failed, which is that markets tend towards
equilibrium, and deviations occur in a random fashion. And the alternative that I
propose is that, far from reflecting the underlying reality accurately, markets always
distort that reality. They always introduce a bias.”
His take on how this relates to democracy promotion is fascinating. I highly recommend reading his remarks (I can’t do justice to summarizing them in a comment.) Briefly I will note he says:
“I've not given up on open society, but I realized that it's not enough to have freedom of speech, free elections, and so on, or even rule of law. You also need to have a good
understanding of reality, and a respect for reality. And how to gain that respect, and
how to preserve it, that's the big unsolved problem as far as I'm concerned.”
And,
“I don't think that democracy can be implanted from the outside. It's really whether democracy functions or not, really depends on the people and the institutions of the country.” He went on to say OSI “generally tend[s] to help wherever we think that there is a domestic push, and where is a – there are democratic transitions. Countries with people with democratic ambitions being elected without capacity to deliver on their promises, and that's where we tend to move in.”
It isn’t necessarily new to say democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, but his remarks connecting the financial breakdown with limits on democracy promotion are very interesting.
Carol Starmack