Like many people I have waited a long time for the Arab Democratic Spring. I have been both amazed and humbled by the sacrifices ordinary Arabs have made to win freedom. It is good to see all the rubbish spouted by so called experts that has demeaned Arab society, culture and religion to be exposed as rubbish. However I am also worried this pro-democracy movement could be crushed and reversed.
Recent sociological theory on the transformation of societies to democracy ("democratization") claims that democratic change is inevitable due to the creation of middle classes, reaction to inequality and the inherent inefficiency and corruption of autocratic systems. The idea is to promote peaceful economic and political cooperation between states and wait for autocratic states to sort their own internal political systems.
It is therefore not very surprising, given the severe problems following politically botched interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current theories of democratization, that it is fashionable to heavily criticize intervention in pro-democracy struggles in the Middle East.
China and Russia are authoritarian regimes. According to the Democracy Index 2010 rankings (Economist Intelligence Unit) China is 136th and Russia is 107th , while the US is 17th and the UK 19th (what unites them however is they all have an equal veto vote in the UN's security council, what then of the reasonableness of this organization's mandates?). Both China and Russia are stable and are making economic progress, with no movement towards democracy.
A recent paper "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail" by Deudney and Ikenberry 2009, makes the now standard arguments for the inevitability of democracy. It presents a false dichotomy between autocracy and full democracy. Recent events in Libya, Syria and Bahrain show repressive states crushing mass protests demanding freedom and equality with well armed security brigades. Given the state of sophisticated military technology available to today's unprincipled despot, what power does the fear of mass revolt really have? The arguments of accommodating the emerging middle classes and increasing economic efficiency still apply. Therefore the autocracy gives way to a hybrid system with wider democracy and strong legal protection (except for the poor), but which still leaves a large percentage of the consequently poor population with no representation.
Many Indians claim that there own country is like this. Aravind Adiga, author of "White Tiger"(2008) explained in an interview in 2009 with Brad Frenette. "The age old divide between the rich and poor takes a heavy toll on people who bear the brunt of poverty; leading impoverished lives. The chasm between the haves and have-nots defies all logic and reason. The burgeoning nexus between the corrupt public servants and the perverted political class is devouring the lesser mortals. This rot is not just killing but soul destroying. In the largest democracy of the world, BPL [Below Poverty Line] families are at the receiving end, used as pawns to be exploited and eliminated. There seem to be just two classes- the oppressor and the oppressed; the victor and the victim that define our social fabric." India is ranked 40th in the Economist rankings, despite the state sanctioned political violence that allows everyone to vote, but only some people to stand for election.
I know that the increase in the percentage of people who could vote, and concessions made to the poor in general, in nineteenth century Europe depended to a significant extent on the fear of a repeat of the French Revolution and the revolts of 1848. Democracy was then further extended in the twentieth century by the need to get entire populations motivated to fight two world wars. We underestimate in Western countries how much our success in creating democracies depended on the state of technology, that gave the masses economic as well as military power.
In summary democracy may well not prevail. If democracies do not support pro democracy revolts in other countries, then these waves of change may fail. The result will be a world in which democracies compete economically with countries with economies that only give meaningful support to small sections of their populations. The result will be a pressure for democracies to ditch their principles. In the words of President Lincoln in his famous 1858 House Divided Speech. ".....Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South." If you think this is an overblown comparison, then imagine also a world that has a climate, food, resource and population crisis. We need good governance more than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment