In my essay on 'Five Strategic Mistake' I sought to correct the intellectual failure in the Francis Fukuyama's thesis on 'The End of History'. I admire the thinking of Francis Fukuyama and consider him to be one of the most serious strategic thinkers in the world.
However, I pointed out a major and strategic flaw in his thinking. He discounted the issue of democracy in the developing world in his work on 'The End of History'. This was a serious intellectual and strategic failure. It weakened the West's victory on democracy because it stopped the thinking necessary to create democracy in every country of the world and how it was going to be done. Now events across the world has put this question firmly on the agenda.
I want to highlight why this is going to be one of the key issue in the world in this century. The battle for democracy has not been won in the world. The developing and emerging economies are facing the issues of how a democracy functions, what constitutes a democracy, how does democracy relate to monarchies (e.g. in the Middle East with its Emirates and Sheikhdoms), the relationship between democracy and religions and the relationship between democracy and economic growth.
In an era of the rise of China as a global economic power, it is necessary to get this issue right. In an era of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamist forces seeking to create more theocratic states and overthrow secular ones, it is important to get this issue right. In an era of a hunger for commodities, there is an important discussion about the role of democracy in Africa and in commodity-rich states. There are also issues about the functioning of democracies and the expectations of people in existing democracies. For example, the issue of corruption in India which is the world's largest democracy, has risen to the top of the agenda with the Ana Hazare issue. There are also major issues about how a democracy deals with terrorist threats. In India, there is an issue of the Maoist terrorist threat and the Kashmir insurgency. Can a democracy use brutal force to impose its will on a reluctant people or class of people? In the USA, the issue of Guantanmo Bay is a major issue of the attitude towards the liberty in a situation of dangerous terrorist threats and the need to take action to pre-empt these. In Europe, there is a major issue of the rise of extreme right wing forces using some libertarian and pro-liberty arguments against the forces of Islamic backwardness and fundamentalism and winning considerable electoral support. In South East Asia, Burma is still a military dictatorship and its military is in charge despite the freeing of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. Pragmatism in relation to dictators/absolute monarchies is a major issue for many countries e.g. India and Burma is thought in this way, Brazil and Iran is thought in this way, Saudi Arabia and USA is thought in this way, Thailand and UK is thought in this way, Taliban and Pakistan is thought in this way, etc. There is a lot of complexity in the issue.
The challenge for the champions of democracy is to be clear in their strategies, tactics and political arguments.
The first clarity is the need to be clear that there is a requirement for democracy in all parts of the world.
The second clarity is to identify the main obstacles to democracy. This is about understanding the rationale for a lack of democracy. This is based on vested interests, but there are different types of vested interests. It is useful to re-visit the Western route to democracy. Progress in the West took centuries (the world has speeded up in a dramatic way, so the timetable for democracy is more compact) and the process of democracy is not a simple one. I believe that there has to be a strategy discussion about democracy and its range of constitutional arrangements. For instance, constitutional monarchies exist across Europe within a framework of real democracy and power bestowed through the electoral mandate in a pluralist system with free speech, free media and political freedoms. I believe that it is healthy to discuss a constitutional monarchy model in the Middle East. The Al Qaeda model of overthrowing the Saudi Royal family is not the only option. This is also an option across all the Emirates and Sheikhdoms of the Middle East. Equally, there can be a discussion about stability and democracy in China. There was a real element of the Chinese communist party following a Gorbachov type model of internal reform in the Tiananmen Square democracy battle and its brutal repression by elite squads, where Deng Xiao Ping was in two minds about it (according to some sources0 and very much some top leaders of the Chinese Communist Party supported it. The situation in china has moved on, but this can be part of the opening up the thinking of democracy in relation to China. This can be one element of the discussion about the possible process of a transition to democracy in China. Equally, the Chinese middle class do seek an expanding space for cultural freedom in the context of its economic and social power in a new China as well as its need to interact in the global arena. A real discussion on the progress for democracy and actual policy tactics in specific countries is vital to energise a global process of engagement on this question. Western policy makers are hampered by this element of the discussion too.
The third element is the need to identify the critical elements of a democracy. My catch-phrase is that democracy is the goal and the means. Elections are not a one-off event. Hitler was elected. and then abolished elections. The Bolsheviks took part in elections - and then abolished them when they lost. There are Islamic fundamentalists capable of winning elections, but they do not operate in a democratic way because democracy is not a political way of life to them. For instance, Hamas literally killed its opposition some of its Fatah elements by throwing people off rooftops to death to deter opposition. Freedom of speech has been curtailed by President Hugo Chavez by his attacks on opposition TV space. Democracy is not winning one election or many elections. Iranian President was elected (probably in highly rigged election according to the evidence), but he refused to allow freedom of protest and has recently started a major campaign of imprisoning opposition leaders and even slight critics as well as sentencing some of the them to death. Democracy has to be a political way of life. So it totally legitimate to criticise anti-democratic actions of dictators. This leads to the question of the health of existing democracies which do see democracy as a way of life as part of the permanent institutional arrangements where the people choose the leader and are free to speak out on all questions affecting society. Again, it is right to criticise short-comings in a democracy too. Equally, I believe there has to be clarity that existing democracies are superior to dictatorships of any type. Democracies have a right to defend themselves. It was right for democracies to fight against Hitler's conquest of Europe by resorting to armed action. So it is right for democracies to fight the forces of reactionary anti-democracy elements even by using armed force in order to defend themselves. I believe that terrorism does require special measures in order to defend democracy. Francis Fukuyama was right about the real victory for democracy in Eastern Europe. The world got transformed.
The challenge is to transform the developed world on the question of democracy across the Middle East, South and East Asia, across Africa and Latin America. The vast majority of the world's population live in these societies. The right of people to choose their rules and in a free way is a truly great right. It is a measure of the immense progress made in the world. This right is for everyone in the world. The people of the developing countries might be poor - but they are human beings and have inalienable human rights. Democracy is a very modern human right.
No comments:
Post a Comment