If you're not in the habit of visiting each other's blogs and looking at the comments sections therein you are missing out on on-going debates which may be of interest. None of this is specifically course-related but it is interesting nonetheless and as you may not be aware of it I thuoght I'd bring it to your attention. Over on Pip's Blog we've been having a debate on, among other things, US hegemony, the utility of military force and whether or not democracy can be imposed, which began with his post 'review of module 2.2'. Have a look.
My last comment there had a lot of links embedded in it which don't come through properly in comments so I'll repost it here.
Sean, Pip, we've raised a number of big issues here--each of which we could discuss for ages. Let me try and address them in turn.
ANTI-AMERICANISM
Sean you express the concern of Americans for how they are seen in the world. All that I can say is that from my perspective there are few things more off-putting then the 'why do they hate us?' debate. Yes, the US is widely reviled; equally it is widely envied--usually by those bleating the loudest. Over my summer holiday I read a book called Hating America: A History by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin which I took out from my local library. It's worth having a look at. Anti-Americanism is nothing new. I don't even think it is particularly more prevalent now than it was in the past. Times have changed: the Soviet Union no longer exists to unite Europe and America in quite the same way as it did before (and even during the Cold War tensions were often very close to the surface--France pulled out of NATO in the aerly '60s!). The protests in London have all streamed past my office so I've had a lot of opportunity to observe them. There was nothing coherently anti--American about them; in fact there was nothing coherent about them at all! Never have I seen a more motley collection in my life. Anti-Israel, Anti-fur, Anti-globalization, Anti-everything. As for Middle Eastern Anti-Americanism I think most of what is worth saying about it was said by Bernard Lewis 15 years ago in his famous Atlantic Monthly article 'The Roots of Muslim Rage' http://www.cis.org.au/policy/summer01-02/PolicySummer01_3.html
DECLINE OF US POWER This is a tricky one. This article is worth reading. http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/hendrickson.html
For my part I am far from convinced that US power is declining relative to any of its competitors. Europe is beset with deep structural economic problems, not to mention social (look at France right now) far worse than those of the US; militarily it's no competition at all--actually the question of US-Europe military competition strikes me as more than faintly ridiculous. Russia--don't get me started on Russia. It will take a hundred years for Russia to repair the damage done to it by almost a century of Soviet 'communism'. A lot of attention is focused on China as the next rival. That seems the most plausible to me, but it is worth keeping in mind the huge problems which China faces: its economy rests upon a foundation which is decidely shaky in some important respects. The Chinese banking system is riddled with bad loans. Chinese industry is burgeoning at a point in history in which critical resources, notably oil and gas, are becoming scarcer. The distribution of wealth is so skewed in China that the wealthy coast and impoverished interior seem like different countries. The environmental cost to China of industrialization is mounting alarmingly. Even still I am optimistic about China in the long term. The thing is, thuogh, I still don't think they'll be a threat. In order to keep its economy growing China will have to liberalize its political system. In which case, there's not terribly much to argue about--nothing on the order of the Cold War anyway. The Muslim world is in terminal decline with no way out. The UNDP's Arab Human Development Report makes sobering reading. You can download it on-line but it costs 10$. This article in The Economist summarizes the main findings well. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1213392
India is a place which fascinates me. I confess to knowing no more about the place than the average well-read citizen (I spent a month in Goa but I shant claim that lounging on the beach in the sun reading Tom Clancy novels did much for my understanding of the place). Even so the combination of a relatively high-skilled, literate, low-cost, English-speaking and youthful work force combined with a democratic system and rule of law seems to me a winning combination. I don't think that the US can be sanguine about its place in the world. India and China could put up some fierce competition but if any country in the West is able to meet that challenge it will be America.
UTILITY OF MILITARY POWER
I'm not sure I agree that the source of American might is its military power. Clearly, it expends vastly more than any other country on its armed forces and, accordingly, it has an abundance of strategic assets which no one else does. The UK has one working aircraft carrier as I recall--and that's about to be retired (when its replacement will arrive, and what aircraft will fly from it who knows?); France has one too, as does Spain; the US has 12 (or 13?). The question is how much use is all that power? The way I see it: not much--certainly not at the current moment and arguably not much in the future either--thuogh admittedly there's scope for debate here. By my rough count the US has about 90 infantry battalions plus SF and a few other ground forces amounting to, say, 100,000 'boots'. That's an extremely thin line relative both to the American population and the jobs they are given to do. Effectively the world's preeminent military and economic power is almost completely (maybe more than completely, if such a state can exist), with operations in Afghanistan (pop. 29 million) whose international ranking in GDP per capita is 209th of 223, Iraq (pop. 26 million) whose GDP per capita is 160th of 223, and a deployment in South Korea against an attack from the North, a country of 23 million people whose GDP per capita is 175th of 223. (Statistics generated at this incredibly useful site: http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php)
Clearly, then, 'military might' is not all it's cracked up to be. Which is why it's a good thing that US power is not really based on it at all. I think if anything unites anti-Americans from London to Kabul it's not the American army but what they see as the insidious onslaught of American culture.
CAN DEMOCRACY BE IMPOSED?
There's a stock answer to this: yes, of course it can be, as was demonstrated in postwar Germany and Japan. A better question is whether it can be done in the same manner again. On that count, I'm not sure. Germany, for all its faults, shared a common Western cultural inheritance of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, and it had had a democracy which was perverted by the Nazis in the interwar period. Moreover, after two world wars it was presented with a stark choice by its conquerors between mending its ways or being forcibly dismembered and deindustrialized. Basically, a metaphorical gun to the nation's metaphorical head. Japan, one could argue along similar along similar lines while adding that Japanese 'democracy' even today is not really all that democratic having had one-party rule for almost the entirety of its postwar history. These are good questions but I think, Pip, its incumbent on those who would say 'Democracy has to come from within. It cannot be imposed and certainly not with the big "stick" of the military too much in evidence. When a state/nation is ready for it they will surely embrace it.' to explain how this spontaneous embrace could take place somewhere like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
UPDATE: On rereading this I'd like to strengthen my suggestion that if you are interested in the question of an American empire, if it exists and if it does ho wlong wil it last, then I strongly urge you to read the worldpolicy.org article which I linked to. It's long, but very good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My suggestion is not so much that “the people”, when they are ready for democracy, can simply effect it in a totalitarian regime, although the events of 9th November 1989, 16 years ago to the day, in ripping down the Berlin Wall might be seen as the beginning of a fairly recent example. That said, there are many examples of where “the people” have effected democratic change in their countries and I will cover some of these later. The essence of my point, is rather that where there is a country that has no tradition of democracy, “the people” have no concept of universal suffrage, no real idea of even what voting is about, then I’m not sure that democracy can be “imposed” in any meaningful and lasting way. One can certainly impose a democratic structure and the associated democratic systems on a country but I do not believe that one can impose the “essence” of democracy.
And what are we talking about here anyway? Are we simply talking about electoral democracy, which most governments since the 90’s seem to have conceded to if not fully embraced. i.e. “regular and reasonably open polls, in which all adult citizens choose their leaders” but where, it is questionable whether such governments are then actually accountable to their people anyway. Or are we talking about true and full democracy with all the “freedoms” that come with it? How many democracies are really just democracies cloaked in one party rule? In how many countries is it the mullahs, the immans, the Paramount Chiefs, the “notables”, etc who tell “the people” who to vote for in the first place? I saw this at first hand last year when supervising the first local government elections in Sierra Leone for over 40 years. Firstly, “competition” was systematically removed by all sorts of nasty/underhand pressures. If there was only one candidate in a ward then no one actually got to have a vote anyway! The singleton candidate was simply announced the winner. I seem to remember that there were about 50 such wards! When there was more than one candidate then, as often as not, the Village, Section and Paramount Chiefs (who still hold enormous power here and especially out in the “bush”) simply told “their” people who to vote for and they gladly did. In some cases, “the people” were told that if they voted for the opposition then their wards would not receive any centralized funding! These were deemed to be “free and fair” elections and everyone was happy. And by African standards they were and everyone is happy for the moment but is this real democracy? I think not but one could say that at least it is a start and the voter registration was very high and the turnout (in those wards where it was required) was also very high. A “fledgling democracy” maybe – but let’s wait for the presidential elections in 2007.
One only has to look next door to the presidential elections going on in Liberia, that famously named country to which the freed black American slaves were given the option of “returning” to, for another interesting example of democracy at work. The presidential “run off” is now down to two candidates: the “Iron Lady” banker and professional politician and “George” the ex professional footballer. Interesting options! One, a woman in a continent where women are still widely circumcised and where there is no serving female head of state but part of the “old system” and, well, an ex footballer (soccer to our northern Americans friends) and a man. Common sense and logic suggests that the women will win but my hope is with the bloke! Why? Because I think that ‘the people” after many years of war really want democracy and will therefore vote for anything that is not linked to the past and the corruption associated with it. The Charles Taylor legacy if you like. I’m not sure that the footballer will make a good president and I do not subscribe to the notion that “a country deserves the president it elects” but there is an understanding and a true belief in democracy in Liberia that I think will prevail. Time will tell but my belief is that if the “George” wins then it is a good sign for true democracy. Quite what he will do for the Liberia is another matter. If the professional politician wins then it is ”business” as usual with the “chiefs” having manipulated the voting and a resumption of the status quo ante.
The military of the “free world” can certainly “remove” totalitarian regimes and can do so very effectively but then to impose democracy if the majority of “the people” don’t actually understand what it is, let alone want it, is something else. Yes, you can lead a man to the polling station and make him make his finger mark but is that actually democracy? Indeed, after the breakup of Yugoslavia how many times did it take to get enough people to vote in the “bits” thereafter in the first placed in order to pass the percentage of the electorate required to even allow the result to stand? Kosovo? Macedonia? FRY? Look at voting apathy in the West.
In Iraq, the draft constitution has been approved through a vote and therefore one can say that there is enough of a desire for democracy to succeed. How could they, “the people”, have effected the regime change needed? With great, great difficulty but I believe that, ultimately, all totalitarian states will fail. It may have taken the death of Saddam (natural or otherwise) or some other “trigger” that might have mobilized “the people”. “The people” can, after all, only take so much before the have nothing to lose and therefore act aka French Revolution. The civil war here was actually started out of a desperation of those up in the countryside who had absolutely nothing and no hope for the future. They therefore had nothing to lose and they acted. The subsequent conduct of the war et al is, however, another matter! Look at South America, that bastion of military rule up until the 80’s. It was “the people” who protested against the governments for not addressing social issues; Peru in 80, Argentina in 83, Brazil in 85 and even Chile in 89. In each case there were two elements; pressure from the social movements and concessions from at least part of the military leadership and both were prompted by economic crisies and the erosion of regime support. Of course, the speed and extent varied. Reynolds covers this well. Look at Albania where housing reform was the root cause of the dissatisfaction of “the people” and the ultimately led to the move to democracy.
It is probably fair to say that government legitimacy derives as much from economic performance as any democractic credentials. If everyone has what they want economically then why the need to bother with democracy. Look at Brunei even Japan (albeit “democratic”). Indeed, some “Globalists” would actually say that democracy is propped up by economic performance. Others go further and say that only where there is a strong economy and an effective “middle class” will democracy thrive!
Most countries today seem to want to have democracy or at least say that they are “democratic” but not always all that it entails and especially if it means their own removal from power. By all means, “let’s have a vote so long as we control the outcome”. Look at Zimbabwe and the way Mugabe holds on to power. Where corruption is so endemic where does one start? Look at the recent elections in Egypt where opposition was allowed for the first time but then starved of the resources needed to mount an effective campaign. That said, it was interesting to see the “Muslim Brothers” being allowed to mount a demonstration in Cairo yesterday flanked by armed police, who simply stood by. I can’t imagine that being allowed not too many moons ago. Look at Pakistan where, up on the border with Afghanistan, it proves all but impossible to enforce central law let alone democracy and that is in a state led by the military. The list goes on.
One can write some rules, a “constitution” if you like, but if there is not a majority of “the people” who are willing to make it work then democracy is meaningless. Hence my belief that true democracy has to come from within and cannot be “imposed”. Iran? I would not be so sure that democracy could be “imposed” there. Afghanistan? Up in “the hills’ where is no concept of democracy, and there never has been, it will certainly take some time for democracy to be fully embraced and yet Afghanistan is being declared “democratic”.
The framework and structures of democracy can certainly be “imposed” but I say that “the people” have to want democracy enough to make it work and to make it worth anything in the long run. Anything less is simply a façade and should be recognized as such. How much does it actually matter is the other question? The West “conquered” most of the world with military force it then “created” most of the borders of most of the current states of the world, more often than not, deliberately cutting across nations, tribal areas, etc. We might conveniently forget this but I’m sure that those who live in these countries do not. Wasn’t it the allies who promised the Kurds their own state after WW1 if they fought for the allies (which they did)? Wasn’t it Churchill who subsequently first gassed the Kurds in the 20’s calling them uncivilized tribes? Who put Saddam where he was in the first place? On and on! And don’t get me wrong – I was and still am a supporter of the recent (ongoing) war in Iraq.
These are personal views, which are quickly written, unstructured and, I know, largely unsubstantiated by fact. Rhetoric is what some might call it! Others might call is “waffle”! I do not mean to offend anyone by what I write and I do look forward to being “educated” by those who, I know and acknowledge, will know better than I.
Hmmm, a long post here which may make it seem perverse that I will reply first to the last paragraph. You wrote 'I do not mean to offend anyone by what I write and I do look forward to being “educated” by those who, I know and acknowledge, will know better than I.'
Do you mean me? All I can say is that I for one most emphatically do not know better than you about these things--certainly not about the situation in Africa which you describe! Equally, on the main question you pose what exactly are we talking about here?' What do we mean by democracy? I have no definitive answer. Every political science department in the Western world begins its introductory course with a lecture on 'What is democracy?' precisely because there is no single, accepted definition. When you get into it, what seems like a very straightforward thing is, in fact, quite complicated--as you clearly indicate. It's very useful for students to struggle through it--it's an eye-opener for the good ones. (In the Department of War Studies we do something very similar which is to ask 'What is War?' which is also very difficult to pin down. Have a try.)
I like this definition which comes from an essay on Liberal Democracies by G. Bungham Powell in the Encyclopedia of Government and Politics:
'Liberal Democracies are identified by an implicit bargain between the representative governments and their citizens and a specific arrangement which regulates that bargain. The bargain is that the government's legitimacy, its expectations of obedience to its laws, is dependent on its claim to be doing what the citizens want it to do. The organized arrangement that regulates this bargain of legitimacy is the competitive political election.'
What I like is that it's not prescriptive about mechanisms which is good because we know that not all democracies are alike. I like also that it sresses the importance of the implicit bargain--that's the key, not the election which is merely an organizational arrangement. I think this is why you can have states, as you point out, where they have elections but not democracy, because the elections are pro forma, or rigged, or the state controls the media or other levers with which it influences voting patterns so that no real choice is exercised. In these cases, the implicit bargain is not 'we, the government, try to govern in the way that you, the 'people' (incidentally something else which needs a job of work to define), would wish' but 'we the government will not harm, abuse or kill you if you participate in this pro forma demonstration of popular participation.'
Now, let me jump back to your first paragraph in which you note the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the Cold War as an example of spontaneous liberation. I beg to differ somewhat. I think the Revolutions of 1989 are easily as consequential as the Revolution of 1789 (of which more later)--but there are some distinct and positively curious differences. Most importantly, it is hard to describe these as really 'revolutions' in the traditional sense. There was almost no violence anywhere except for a short time in Romania and then in Moscow in August 1990. There was no 'overthrow' as such. What we saw was a voluntary abdication of political supremacy by the ruling elite. Why they did this is interesting. A major reason was that Gorbachev said that the USSR would not use force to preserve socialist regimes in its staellite states (he rejected the precepts of the Brezhnev Doctrine, put differently). For the first time since 1945 these regimes had to stand on their own 'legs' which, considering they hadn't exercised them in fifty years, were not very steady. Second, by the late 1980s the ideology of socialism had basically rotted away in these coutries, even amongst the ruling elite who basically had become a plutocracy--a wealthy elite in a society which publicly renounced the whole idea of wealth differential. What the elite recognized was that they could preserve--even extend!--more of what mattered to them, their wealth, by giving up their obligation to rule (which was increasingly difficult and joyless anyway). People forget nowadays that in the heady days of 1989/90 and even into 91 ex-Soviet apparatchiks were all breathless about starting Russia's Boeing or BP. If only state control were lifted then whoever controlled Ilyushin or the big Soviet oil firms would be a billionaire. As it turned out thsi was only true of the oil magnates.
What I meant to get at when I asked about how spontaneous democratic revolutions could succeed in a place like Iraq stems mainly from my observation of eastern Europe. The simple fact is that had Gorbachev not renounced Stalin's method--Terror--then none of it would have happened. One can illsutrate this with a counterfactual. Imagine that Stalin were still alive in 1989 through some miracle of Soviet medical science, do you think Poland, let alone Russia itself, would be free of Soviet domination now? I can't imagine it. I think what we'd have would look a lot like what we see now in North Korea: a state in terminal economic decline, possibly on the verge of implosion (quite different from a democratic explosion, I would argue), in which the appratus of state control is decidedly intact.
And this brings me to the big difference between the Revolution of 1789 and those in 1989. 200 years ago states were still very young and immature. The apparatus of state repression, the means of violence available to autocrats, and the ways of manipulating public opinion and fear were fewer and less sophisticated. Here I can conceive of a repressed people thinking they have nothing left to lose rising up successfully against a regime which did its utmost to keep them down. Nowadays I cannot. The regimes are too powerful. Moreover, popualr 'revolutions' are too easily subverted so that one strongman simply uses popular passion to oust another strongman. The people provide the passion but get nothing for it.
I agree wholeheartedly with all that you say about these 'managed democracies' which are not democratic in any real sense. Where, I think, I disagree is that we should be passive about it. Sure, military force is a blunt and very limited means. I don't think you can 'make democracy by force'; I just don't think that we're ever going to achieve democratic change in many parts of the world withuot the exercise of force. In short, I am a quite firm advocate of 'regime change'--indeed, as far as Iraq was concerned I thuoght this was more than sufficient rationale for the war. Colin Powell in his memoirs recounted an exchange between him and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in which she said 'what's the point of having this fantastic military if we can't use it?' Powell wrote that he practically had a heart attack he got so angry. I can hardly believe saying it--since on just about every matter of consequence I can think of I would imagine myself in opposition to Albright--I have to agree with her point.
I've mentioned before the 'defectiveness' of my moral compass. I am far more comfortable with dispassionate strategic analysis. But the times we're in seem to demand some moral point of view on what is happening in the world. No doubt mine is naive and simplistic: with great power comes grave responsibility. Somehow the idea that we should not intervene, where we have the power to do so, because we should not affect the trajectory of other's political development strikes me as, well, rather ignoble.
I agree that the anti-Americanism debate is off-putting and from my perspective a little tiresome. As David has already noted anti-Americanism has been around for a while. My point in discussing it was not to delve into a banal debate on "why they hate us" but instead to attempt an answer to the question: why doesn't the US quit pussyfooting and get on with it?
Democratic leaders, for better or worse, are constrained by public opinion. This can be seen in some of Bush's current domestic troubles. I think the recent rise in anti-Americanism has made the American public a little gun shy, to put it crudely, and less willing to take risks without the friends (mainly European) that were there during the Cold War. Anti-Americanism may not be new but the lack of like-minded support world wide is.
I think the real test for the suggestion that the US should make more use of its hegemony is the Iraq War, something I supported and continue to (on and off duty). It demonstrates both the capacity and limitations of US hegemony. I think the more sensible way ahead is not to focus so much on US power (which definitely has its uses, but limitations as well) but on mobilizing the rest of the "globalized" world to further include those states that remain disconnected from our political/economic systems. US power has its place, especially where security is concerned, but it cannot accomplish everything.
With that quick post I am off to read the World Policy article David suggested. Incidentally, my favorite writing on US imperialism/hegemony is Michael Ignatieff's piece "The Burden" in the New York Times Magazine a couple years back. A very pragmatic look at the issue. www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/burden.htm
In the latest issue of Commentary the editors asked a couple of dozen 'public intellectuals' for their view on the Bush Doctrine. It makes for fascinating reading. Incidentally, the format is worth considering also as these are all good examples of Short Essays:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12004023_1
Post a Comment